Subject: Question for Glory Bound |
Bible Note: Glory Bound - I have every right to carry on this discussion as long as you continue to dodge the question. You say you have answered the question. You have not! I ask this Forum to read the exchange of posts in this thread and decide for themselves whether you have answered this important question asking for reasonable proof of your assertion that the KJV and NIV are inspired translations. If you or I or anyone else who posts to this Forum makes an assertion that could seriously mislead the readers of this Forum, it is quite the right of other Forum members to hold him to account by requiring that he offer documented, authoritative proof of such an assertion. It is abundantly clear that you have not done so, and equally clear that you have no intention of doing so. One can only suspect that you refuse to offer reasonable proof of your assertion simply because you have no proof and you are unable to find any proof; and that you are unwilling to admit that fact and confess that it is merely your opinion based on nothing more substantial than thin air. So what's the big beef? someone may ask. Why make an issue of this business about the KJV and NIV being inspired translations? For starters, it's ridiculous. No TRANSLATION of Scripture is inspired. The only words that were breathed of God are those that were written down in the original manuscripts called autographs. So far as anyone has ever been able to determine, there are no autographs extant. What we have is a group of ancient manuscripts which are copies of the originals, that is, they were copied from the autographs themselves, or they were copied from copies of the original autographs. These are not translations but copies. Now from these copies come translations. So how can it be that the KJV and the NIV just happened to be inspired translations? Were the KJV and NIV translators divinely inspired? If they were, what need would they have had for copies of manuscripts that were themselves copies of the truly inspired documents, the autographs? There is not one iota of proof anywhere that the King James Version or the New International Version teams of translators were inspired, no more than there is any proof that the NASB team or any other group of translators were inspired. So to make an assertion of this magnitude is to mislead people into thinking that the KJV and the NIV are divinely inspired, and therefore this leaves the impression on readers' minds that they must accept these two "inspired" versions of Scripture and reject all others because they are not inspired. This position is not only supremely fatuous and inane but it is dead wrong and grossly misleading. .... One would think that two versions of Scripture that were both divinely inspired would agree with one another to the letter on all points, and that they would not be dependent upon ancient manuscripts. We know that the KJV and NIV translators by no means agree to the letter on all points, and we further know that not only were both of them dependent upon the ancient manuscripts but that they didn't both use identical manuscripts throughout! Some of the manuscripts that the NIV translators used were completely unknown to the KJV translators. Case closed. --Hank |