Things That Are Different Are Not the Same by Mickey Carter

This is a book I'm currently reading and I wanted to recommend it to you all. The

author is Mickey Carter, who is the Pastor of Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, Florida. My wife graduated from his Bible College, Landmark Baptist College, and this book was required reading in one of her classes. I found it in our bookshelf and it's been very useful in helping me understand why we believe God preserved His Word, and why the King James is that preserved Word. It's short and easy to read, and will give you a solid spiritual understanding of this issue. Click below for more detail:
Things that are different are not the same: The truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible

20 Cool Ways to Make Extra Money

We all can use some extra cash but let's face it, if you had the time to get an extra job, you would! Here are some great ways to earn extra money without spending a lot of time, or breaking the bank to get started.

1. Start And Monetize a Blog
This is one of the coolest, newest ways to make money with zero investment out of your pocket. Google Adsense and other advertising companies have made this a very profitable venture and extremely easy to start and learn (why do you think I'm writing this one?). Go to Blogger or Wordpress, create your free blog, and start posting! For some help on how to make money with it, check out ProBlogger and Skelliewag. Follow their tips to create a cash cow.

2. Sell or trade stuff on Craigslist
You can make a lot of cash with your junk. Click the title to check out a longer post for ideas!

3. Recycle used toner bottles
TonerBuyer.Com and EmptySolution.com will pay you a nice bounty (up to $22.00 per) for those empty toner bottles that your office throws away everyday. You can even hire some teenagers to run around and collect them from local businesses and mail them in for some hefty cheddar!

4. Start a home-based business with Mary Kay or Party Lite
Before you groan and move on, hear me out. Women LOVE this stuff and you can sell buckets of candles and cosmetics over the holidays. Take a catalogue to work, get some friends to host a party, and you're golden! My wife raked in over $300 with her very first Mary Kay party. If you're a guy, tap into that resource called "girlfriend" or "wife". Sign up under her name, run the back end business stuff, and get her to do some parties. Vanity sells!

5. Write a children's book
I know it sounds crazy, but this is a huge industry and authors are making BANK! You don't have to have expertise, do any research, or even be a good writer. You can even illustrate with stick figures! For some info on how to get started, check out The Purple Crayon.

6. Create a forum or top site
You can create a top site list for a niche that you are interested in. Bloggers and website owners who want to keep their name in front of web surfers are always looking for added visibility and are happy to join. These sites can be monetized with AdWords and the like. Check out Top Site List Planet, Top Site World, or Top Site Lists to get started with a free top site hosting service.

7. Start an e-commerce website
If you have a couple Franklins and are willing to shell out, this is actually very easy. Paul Phillips at American Solutions For Business does this for a living, and can set up the site for you, handle the inventory, shipping, and billing. All you have to do is sit back and rake in the profits. So create a cool brand of something niche. Make your own tee-shirts with your blog logo and create a cult following. Sell custom shoelaces. Get creative. Go crazy. You might just turn that insanity into cash flow.

8. Day trade
This is sometimes considered a respectable form of gambling, however there is actually a science to it (unlike gambling which I don't promote). Be aware that you can win big or lose big with this one. That being said, day trading is very lucrative if you are savvy and have the time and intestinal fortitude to stomach it. Open an account with E*Trade, TD Ameritrade, or Charles Schwab and dive in. They have analysis tools and people you can talk to, and there is a wealth of information at the bookstore, library, and online. Experience is going to be your best teacher, and you may lose more than you make at first but persistence is often rewarded. Try this book to get spun up:

9. Sell books on Amazon.com
My brother went crazy with this and made some spare cash. It turns out certain textbooks go for quite a bit and the buyer pays for shipping. All you have to do is list your collection, and when you get a buyer drop your book in the mail. Easy.

10. Go to school and collect scholarships
I heard about a kid who applied for so many scholarships that he ended up bringing in $2,000,000!

11. Flip cars
Okay, I'm not talking about driving recklessly and collecting the insurance settlement, I'm talking about buying cars and reselling them. If you are mechanically inclined, you can purchase a car that needs some TLC, add a bit of your personal touch over the weekend (IE, fix whatever causes it to be currently inoperable) and resell it for a couple hundred buck profit. No sweat? That depends on you. I gave this one a go and quickly found the learning curve to be very time consuming. You should only try this if you already know what you are doing, or you are willing to invest the time to learn (it can become somewhat of a hobby). Also, be aware of the tools that are required for your project as these can end up costing you more than what you make on the vehicle.

12. Get a paper route
This should be a last resort as it is exhausting. I only list it because it was a source of income for me when we were going through hard times, and it doesn't require you to give up your day job (just a lot of sleep).

13. Be a poster guy for a weight loss company
Anyone have any idea how much the Jared Fogle, the subway guy got for losing his weight and advertising? Why not find out first hand? Pick a weight loss product you like, take a picture of yourself before, than shed those pounds and take an "after" photo. They'll probably pay you for your testimonial, and you'll be thinner!

14. Start a non-profit and be the ED
Everyone's about saving the earth or fixing world poverty. Why not cash in on their goodwill? Start a non-profit organization and make sure you get appointed the Executive Director. You'll be able to get government grants and private donations, and you can write your own salary! How cool is that?

15. Do surveys online
Get paid to take surveys? Sure, why not? Check out http://surveymonster.net/ or similar websites for details.

16. Buy and sell coins
Another hobby that can make you bank. If you are like me and are sorely disappointed that your '90s era baseball cards haven't made you a multi-millionaire like you thought they would when you were a teenager, this is the hobby for you. You still get to collect things, and coins have a great appreciation rate.

17. Get a metal detector and find cool stuff to hawk
This is especially cool if you live near a beach in LA or Miami. Rich people get stupid and lose their suave watches just like the rest of us. No sense it letting all that stupidity go to waste; get out there and start hawking!

18. Scam the multi level marketing system
This will definitely be the subject of a much longer post, but there are ways to work the system with some of the MLM companies and make huge cash from the start. It requires planning and strategy, but if you and a group of friends can organize and hit the ground running, you may just build up a network in record time and become the next success story.

19. Become a tax write-off guru, or just hire one
Last year I donated my old junk to the Goodwill. Since it was all "junk" to me, I wasn't going to write it off for very much. Then I used Turbo Tax's donation estimator, and it came back saying my old junk was worth $1200.00! Many of us pass up write-offs that would otherwise bring in a couple of g's at the end of the year simply because we're too lazy to itemize, or we just don't know. If you think that's you, find a good tax dude and tell him you need help. He'll get you on the right track. Uncle Sam has plenty of suckers to extort without you being one of them.

20. Rent out your truck
I have a big, green, gas-hog 1973 Ford 100 that I've yet to flip (see money-making idea number 11). Before I had this truck, I was always annoyed that I didn't have a pickup to use on Saturdays for dump runs, etc. Then the light bulb went on. Surely there are other home-owners like me who are equally annoyed at their current truck-challenged state and would be eager to rent my truck on Saturdays! If you have a truck you don't use that often (or you are waiting to put in a new neutral switch so you can sell the thing and get it out of your yard), why not put a sign on it that says "Rent My Truck-$20/Day" and park it on some high-traffic street Friday night. Come Saturday morning, you may just find yourself $20 richer (or one truck poorer-make sure you lock it). I haven't looked into the liability and insurance issues, so you'll have to figure that out yourself. Hey, it's worth a call to your insurance company, right?

Is Name Calling Really Wrong?

Among the religious academics, you will get scorned for saying that someone is an idiot (even if it's the truth), or they are a "troll" (meaning they are picking a fight on a forum just to stir things up). Name calling is looked down upon as fighting dirty, and is considered a recourse only for those who are ignorant. The "true intellectuals" are supposed to be above all that nonsense. The term "ad hominem" is loosely tossed about, partly because anything Latin makes you sound smart, and partly because people think that name calling falls into this category of fallacies. I would like to challenge that thought.

First of all, the definition for an Ad Hominem attack is as follows:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You can see that using an ad hominem argument would be like saying, "You're wrong and I know this because you are an idiot!" or "...because you are fat!" There is no logic behind this, therefore it's an ad hominem (an attack against the person). To simply call someone an idiot is not an ad hominem attack, because you are not making an argument. You are making an observation. There is nothing low, ignorant, or dirty about speaking the truth. Hey, there are a lot of idiots on the internet and the truth hurts!

Secondly, Jesus called names:

Matt.3
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matt.12
[34] O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Matt.23
[33] Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luke.3
[7] Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Now I'm sure in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV He says, "Oh you bunch of silly men!" or something limp-wristed along those lines, but in the Bible, we can see that He ripped them up. If it's okay for Jesus to do, it's okay for me. The next time I call someone an idiot and they accuse me of using an ad hominem fallacy, I'm going to point them to the King James Bible and the above verses for my proof text.

My Reply to His Reply to My Reply to His Reply to My Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You equivocated in your use of John 1:1 with Ps. 119:81.

There is no fallacy in my argument, as is evidenced by the use of the word logos in John 1:1:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God .

The word used to describe the Second Person of the Trinity is the same word used throughout the New Testament to describe God's Word which was given to man. The following is an example of one of the many references to the Bible using the Greek word Logos.

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God , a workman that needeth not to be ashamed , rightly dividing the word of truth .

Based on the Greek, John chapter one makes the case that Jesus is the Word of God given by inspiration to man. The have the same relationship as water and ice. Fundamentally the same but manifested in different forms. The capitalization is present because in this case the word "Logos" is referring to the Second Person of the Trinity, who is also manifested in flesh:

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

and in the form of written revelation:

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew we don't have logos in Psalms 119:89, we have dabar:

Ps 119:89 ¶ LAMED. For ever <`owlam>, O LORD , thy word is settled in heaven .

As you say, this too refers to the written Word of God:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
In Ps. 119:81, "word" is a reference to God's special revelation, given to Israel via Moses (compare with vv. 91-95, where his "word" is also termed "ordinances," "law," "precepts," and "testimonies").

...however we see in John chapter one that the two references to "word" refer to the same thing. God's Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, in His verbal manifestation. I see no other way of reading these passages.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You then say, "It existed before the creation of the World." What is the referent of "it"? The second Person of the Trinity, or God's spoken revelation? These two things are not the same.

I think the fact that you make a distinction is leading you to some heresies (or at least wrong conclusions). John 1:3-4 says that it was the Word (Jesus) that created the world:

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

...so when God said, "let there be light" He was not at that moment creating the second Person of the Trinity, He was the second Person of the Trinity manifesting Himself in verbal form.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Again, you equivocated when you said "The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form.”

Here, I think you misunderstood me and I will attribute it to the lack of a properly placed comma. The phrase was intended to mean, "The truth is, the Word of God is Jesus in written form." I wasn't saying that the truth is Jesus. Jesus did say, "I am the Truth..." however that wasn't the point I was trying to make.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You again used the same fallacy when you said, "They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read." For this statement to be true, you would have to admit that the Bible is Jesus Christ.

The above is only a fallacy like you say it is if my statements about Jesus and the Bible are false. John 1 indicates Jesus and the Bible are two different manifestations of the second Person of the Trinity. Because this is true, it's not wrong to say that the "Word" exsisted in Heaven before it was written in human language. In fact, the Bible indicates this in Psalm 119:89 and John 1 (not to belabor the point). You and I clearly differ on this point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You then say, "Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration." This time you are again equivocating on the word "translation." The inspired words written down by the original biblical authors were not a "translation." A translation is a given text transformed into another language. When the biblical authors wrote the Scripture, they were not "translating" eternal truth (Jesus?) into another language. Your use of the word here may be used that way in a poetic sense, but that poetic sense of the word "translation" is not in accordance with the way the word is normally employed in speech.

The Bible is and eternal truth. It exsists outside of the boundries of human language, speech, and verbiage. It is not bound to the feeble limitations of a particualar language or group of languages. To limit God's eternal Word to the Hebrew, Greek, and Armamaic is to say that God isn't big enough to give us His Word, exactly the way He wants it, in any other language. That would be a feeble God indeed. In reality, we see God giving us His eternal, perfect Word through imperfect men using imperfect languages, and yet they produced a perfect Bible. If God did this to give us the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, why couldn't He do this when the Bible was translated into English, Spanish, Tagolog, etc.? It's true that the Greek doesn't translate word for word into English. We don't claim that it does. We do however believe that God has given us His Word in a perfect form in the English language. Because God is bigger than human language and He is ultimately the Author of the Bible, He has full liberty to direct the translation in order to ensure it says what He wants it to say.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Would you say Pharaoh's words "existed before the creation of the World"? Of course not, and yet you have already said that since the "Word" did, so must the Bible have. All this confusion is the result of your numerous equivocations.

I believe the entire Bible existed before the creation of the world, and that would include the words Pharaoh spoke. God knew everything that would occur throughout history before He created the world. We can see this in 1Pet 1:19-20 where we are told that before the foundation of the world (prior to Adam and Eve's sin) God knew He would need to provide Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for our sin:

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

If God was thinking this far ahead, it's not hard to believe that He already knew everything that Pharaoh would do and say.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
If any true preservation is taking place, it must be in the languages the Bible was originally written/inspired in (and that, obviously, cannot be English).

True preservation, in the sense in which you are speaking, takes place only in Heaven since that is where the Word of God originated (again, see Psalm 119:89). Because we are told in the Bible that God's Word will be preserved on earth, we can say it has been preserved. We mean that it has been protected from corruption and destruction, not that it has been maintained in the original language. The original human language is essentially irrelevent because even it is an intermediary, however it does aid us in study and research.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Of course the manuscripts differ -- and thus, the discussion of preservation must surround the manuscripts. There are different views regarding preservation of God's word through the manuscripts, and one view is that the Textus Receptus represents the most appropriate preserved manuscripts. But then if that is true, any translation from the Textus Receptus would be faithful to God's word, and the Textus Receptus itself would be inspired.

Exactly. The difference between them all (for Riverwalkers sake since he is so bent on the Geneva Bible) is that the preceding Bibles were translated prior to the English language being standardized in it's spelling and grammar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
-- but, of course, the translations are not a preservation of God's word, the Textus Receptus is. And so, you have no ground to argue against the NKJV, for example, which is based on the Textus Receptus just as the KJV is.

Wrong. The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus. It is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just like the other modern versions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You can talk about the preservation of the KJV, and that only since 1611 -- you cannot talk about the KJV preserving God's word, since God's word was written in the first century, and English didn't even exist as a language when God's word was inscripturated.

You're right. God has not always chosen to preserve His Word in English. It seems He has given the English speaking people a perfect Bible because of the prominence of the language. This does not mean He isn't also preserving His Word in other languages.

You say that you believe God preserved His Word in the original languages. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus upon which the modern versions are based are corrupt manuscripts. Men like Origen, Jerome, and others damaged God’s Word for the sake of the Catholic Church. The debate about whether God’s Word is preserved in the Textus Receptus or the KJV is among KJVO’s, because if you subscribe to either position, you must throw out all modern English translations. They all go back to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

His Reply to My Reply to His Reply to My Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgscott4
thx. I wonder if I will get a response.

Oh, don't worry, you've got one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgscott4
Wow, I appreciate your detailed response. Is it possible to create a thread without name-calling? I doubt it (someone will offend), but let’s try...

No problem, and we'll see how it goes.

Quote:
John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Pss.119
[89] For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

The Bible indicates that the Word of God existed before it was written in the "original languages". The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form (John 1). It existed before the creation of the World. When God gave it to man, He inspired men to write it in a language they could understand. They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read. Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration. In fact, we can see many instances throughout the Bible where God inspired translations. An example is when Joseph served in Pharaoh’s court, he spoke Egyptian but his words were translated into Hebrew when the Old Testament was written. This translation was inspired by God.

The fallacy you employed above is called equivocation, and you used it a number of times before you reached your conclusion.

You equivocated in your use of John 1:1 with Ps. 119:81. In Scripture, the context of the verse determines the meaning of the word. In John 1:1, "Word" is a reference to the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God (prior to the incarnation), as is proved from v. 14 where we read that "the Word became flesh." In Ps. 119:81, "word" is a reference to God's special revelation, given to Israel via Moses (compare with vv. 91-95, where his "word" is also termed "ordinances," "law," "precepts," and "testimonies"). The KJV itself acknowledges the difference by using a capitalized "Word" in John 1:1 (as a title for a Person) and a lowercased "word" in Ps. 119:81 (as a reference to God's spoken revelation, i.e., not a person).

You then say, "It existed before the creation of the World." What is the referent of "it"? The second Person of the Trinity, or God's spoken revelation? These two things are not the same. You have equivocated here, because the two verses are not referring to the same thing (hence "Word" and "word"). God's spoken revelation is not the same thing as the second Person of the Trinity. When God said "let there be light," he did not at that moment "create" the second Person of the Trinity. Your not distinguishing between the second Person of the Trinity, and God's temporal revelation to mankind through the spoken (and written) word, can potentially lead to any number of serious heresies.

Again, you equivocated when you said "The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form (John 1)." "Truth" is not the same as a Person. You cannot say that "truth" is "Jesus." Of course the source of truth is God, and the second Person of the Trinity is God, and so he is true and everything he says and does is true, and we can call him "Truth," and the written word that he inspired is true, but you are nevertheless equivocating on the word. I can say, "the world is round," and that is a truth statement, but that does not mean the statement "the world is round" is Jesus Christ.

You again used the same fallacy when you said, "They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read." For this statement to be true, you would have to admit that the Bible is Jesus Christ. That is the blunt way of demonstrating the equivocation you have employed, especially if you believe "truth" and "Jesus" are the same thing.

You then say, "Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration." This time you are again equivocating on the word "translation." The inspired words written down by the original biblical authors were not a "translation." A translation is a given text transformed into another language. When the biblical authors wrote the Scripture, they were not "translating" eternal truth (Jesus?) into another language. Your use of the word here may be used that way in a poetic sense, but that poetic sense of the word "translation" is not in accordance with the way the word is normally employed in speech.

Your next few sentences ("In fact, we can see many instances throughout the Bible where God inspired translations. An example is when Joseph served in Pharaoh’s court, he spoke Egyptian but his words were translated into Hebrew when the Old Testament was written. This translation was inspired by God.") are proof of what a am saying here, because Pharaoh speaking in Egyptian and Joseph translating his words into Hebrew is the ordinary use of the word "translate" (not the "poetic" sense you used in reference to inspiration). Joseph simply recorded Pharaoh's words in Hebrew, and they are inspired as written by Moses, a true account of what Pharaoh actually said. But it's the Hebrew words written by Moses that are inspired and God's word, not the original words spoken by Pharaoh.

Would you say Pharaoh's words "existed before the creation of the World"? Of course not, and yet you have already said that since the "Word" did, so must the Bible have. All this confusion is the result of your numerous equivocations.

Quote:
It is not a moot point since you can't study the originals. They don't exist.

And now you are equivocating on the word "original." I was referring to the original language Scriptures, not the original autographa, which of course no longer exist. As copies of the original autographa have been made, it is through those copies that God's word has been preserved. And those copies are, of course, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek -- anything in any other language cannot be a preservation of God's written word, since God's written word was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Quote:
This is something that a lot of non-KJVO's ignore, but the original autographs have all been destroyed and all we have are manuscripts, the oldest of which date to 400 years after Christ's death.

No one is ignoring it, you are simply equivocating on the word "original" and thus misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, others' views. There were the original autographa, which were written in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The contents of the original autographa were preserved through copies, and all those copies were in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If any true preservation is taking place, it must be in the languages the Bible was originally written/inspired in (and that, obviously, cannot be English).

Quote:
The manuscripts in question differ greatly, which account for the differences in the modern Bible versions when compared to the KJV.

Of course the manuscripts differ -- and thus, the discussion of preservation must surround the manuscripts. There are different views regarding preservation of God's word through the manuscripts, and one view is that the Textus Receptus represents the most appropriate preserved manuscripts. But then if that is true, any translation from the Textus Receptus would be faithful to God's word, and the Textus Receptus itself would be inspired. Translations based off the Textus Receptus would each equally be legitimately held in esteem as translations of God's word, so far as they are faithful to the original language manuscripts -- but, of course, the translations are not a preservation of God's word, the Textus Receptus is. And so, you have no ground to argue against the NKJV, for example, which is based on the Textus Receptus just as the KJV is.

Quote:
Just because you study the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic doesn't mean this discussion is moot.

Yes it does, because you have taken the discussion of inspiration to translations -- discussion surrounding inspiration and, particularly, preservation must regard copies of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. You can talk about the preservation of the KJV, and that only since 1611 -- you cannot talk about the KJV preserving God's word, since God's word was written in the first century, and English didn't even exist as a language when God's word was inscripturated.

Quote:
It's true that there are differences in the languages and things change when the Bible is interpreted, but God is bigger than language and translation, and can make sure that whether the Bible is being translated into Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, English, or Spanish, it says what He wants it to say. It is perfect.

When the last book of the Bible was written, God stopped inspiring men for creating inscripturated revelation with his authority. If you believe God truly "inspires" men when they translate the original language Scriptures (into, e.g., English, like the KJV), then there is no need for preservation. Preservation is an important doctrine because inspiration has ceased. No translation of the Bible is perfect; all you need to do is learn a foreign language to know that.

Quote:
If God cared enough to give us the Bible, why do you find it hard to believe He would care enough to preserve the Bible in a perfect form?

I do believe he has preserved it in a perfect form; just that that form cannot be in English, because if it were, it wouldn't be preservation, it would be inspiration.

My Reply to His Reply to My Reply

Wow, I appreciate your detailed response. Is it possible to create a thread without name-calling? I doubt it (someone will offend), but let’s try...


John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Pss.119
[89] For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

The Bible indicates that the Word of God existed before it was written in the "original languages". The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form (John 1). It existed before the creation of the World. When God gave it to man, He inspired men to write it in a language they could understand. They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read. Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration. In fact, we can see many instances throughout the Bible where God inspired translations. An example is when Joseph served in Pharaoh’s court, he spoke Egyptian but his words were translated into Hebrew when the Old Testament was written. This translation was inspired by God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
A translation is a translation, and it's only as good as the translation is faithful to the original languages. Seeing as how I study the Bible in the original languages (and not in English), it's a moot point. Are you going to say that my Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Bible isn't the preserved Word of God? Indeed, it's the only true preserved Word of God, because God didn't move men by the Holy Spirit to write in English -- English, of course, didn't even exist when the Bible was written. So, obviously, it would be impossible to claim that any English translation is a preservation of God's Word when God's Word was never originally written in English.

It is not a moot point since you can't study the originals. They don't exist. This is something that a lot of non-KJVO's ignore, but the original autographs have all been destroyed and all we have are manuscripts, the oldest of which date to 400 years after Christ's death. The manuscripts in question differ greatly, which account for the differences in the modern Bible versions when compared to the KJV. Just because you study the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic doesn't mean this discussion is moot.

It's true that there are differences in the languages and things change when the Bible is interpreted, but God is bigger than language and translation, and can make sure that whether the Bible is being translated into Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, English, or Spanish, it says what He wants it to say. It is perfect.

If God cared enough to give us the Bible, why do you find it hard to believe He would care enough to preserve the Bible in a perfect form?

His Reply to My Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgscott4
I'm saying that many doctrines must be accepted by faith because they cannot be proven. Prove to me that Jesus saves. You can show me in the Bible, but you can't PROVE that your soul has been saved from Hell; you have to trust in Christ that He will do as He promised.

Yes, that is called faith in what the Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that salvation is through Jesus Christ, and if I am in him, I will be saved. Can I empirically prove that I am in him? No, but such proof is irrelevant to faith.

Quote:
I can show you where God promised to preserve His Word in the Bible, and this is a doctrine, however I can't scientifically prove that He has done so (although there is much circumstantial evidence). I accept it by faith.

So far so good.

Quote:
You say that because there is no mention of the King James in God's Word, our belief that God has used the King James to preserve His Word in our age is not a Biblical doctrine. I don't believe that God spells out every detail in the Bible. We are told in James 1:2-3 "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience." God doesn't give us the exhaustive list of trails we will face in life, but that doesn't change the doctrine that if we experience trials, it will work patience. If you said, "I'm experiencing a trial that is not listed in the Bible, therefore I don't believe it will produce patience," you would sound immature.

King James had nothing to do with preserving God's Word, but he had something to do with propagating it by authorizing a translation that he approved. Those are two different things.

Quote:
Likewise it's silly to expect that God would have spelled out the names of every version He would use to preserve His Word, but preservation is still a Biblical Doctrine so we can by faith believe that there must be the preserved Word of God available.

But the Word of God was not written in English, and the preserved Word therefore cannot be in English. God's Word was written down in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek -- to preserve it means to have it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. An English translation is just that, a translation, and thus an essential modification to God's Word: the language was modified, and thus it is not a preservation of God's Word. A translation (if faithful) contains the same concepts and communicates the same thing as the original language Bible, but it has essentially changed on account of it being written in a new language. If it's in a new language, it goes without saying that it's not a preservation of the Bible. I'm not arguing that translations of the Bible are wrong; they are obviously necessary, but translations are for propagation, not preservation, as contemporary language inevitably changes.

Quote:
I don't understand why you are fighting this so hard, except that maybe you feel you would be looked down upon for accepting this Bible truth at face value. Let me assure you that you may lose some friends, but you will gain others and we all aren't as dumb as we look.

I do accept what the Bible says at face value, I just don't believe there is anything special regarding the King James Version as compared to any other faithful translation. A translation is a translation, and it's only as good as the translation is faithful to the original languages. Seeing as how I study the Bible in the original languages (and not in English), it's a moot point. Are you going to say that my Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Bible isn't the preserved Word of God? Indeed, it's the only true preserved Word of God, because God didn't move men by the Holy Spirit to write in English -- English, of course, didn't even exist when the Bible was written. So, obviously, it would be impossible to claim that any English translation is a preservation of God's Word when God's Word was never originally written in English.