Steve asked; what reasons or evidence lead you to this conclusion? (Steve pg.2)
BP, you’ve gone quite a few pages, you have done well in responding to the many reasons against, but I haven’t seen you give any reason for KJO. So what would you say are the ‘best’ reasons or evidence to accept the KJO belief? (One such answer seemed to be this on pg.2)
“Also, to add to my comments, that there is a human (carnal) doctrine which says, "we cannot translate fully 100% over from one language into a receptor language". This may be a fact when considering mundane works, but we are dealing with the words of One here Who said that with him nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37). And to show that this is not a presumption, I may quote: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) (BP. Pg2. June 27)
You use a scripture, but again there is nothing that limits this to one specific translation, or even translations at all. It speaks of ‘all’ His works, we are His works also, are we perfect? Yet His way and his will that is perfect, ultimately bringing about his perfect work (nothing specifying a perfect English translation). I suppose it is a ‘carnal’ doctrine that says 2+2=4.
You back up this up with:
“So, for the entire Church in the last days there is to be one perfect Bible, which presumes that built upon this foundation that there is to be one Church, a Church which is the gathered remnant of all believers, with doctrinal roots into the Anglo-Protestant denominations” (BP pg.2 June 27)
Your ‘reason’ here seems to be found in “
there is to be” but based on what? What scripture foretells this event? (It sounds like your saying the reformation is the foundation, or the restoration of the Church)
(Another such answer seemed to be this on pg.2)
The proper approach would be to believe that when God inspired, He put into motion by the very words He said, the power to ensure the gathering of His Word in the future...
Not as if the words were ever lost, but to ensure that in time a perfect form could be had of the entire Bible. Since nations are told to obey His commandments, how can they do it if we do not have full, reliable certainty of His words?... Not as if God's words are uncertain, but that there must be a perfectly and complete form to fully obey.
Pr 22:20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?
Surely English is the means of making known, not just generally, but ultimately specifically, perfectly and fully, for complete obedience, the actual full words of God in the English language.
Not as if His Word was unable to obeyed, or untrue outside of English or before now, but rather, that it not be yet at some future time in some future dialect that the Word of God be manifestly gathered in its full textual and translational perfection, but already now at hand as the recovery answering the multiplicity of variations and uncertainties which exist in the readings and variant possible senses attributed to the original languages. (BP pg.2)
This whole paragraph seems again to be based on the presumption summed up in your words “Surely English is the means of making known…” (Surely seems to be your argument)
Like we said, all the texts agree in almost full unity. Even the most problematic translations (i.e. The NWT) cannot shake the truth of scripture, because the truth and doctrines are so interwoven into the reason, principles and story of the whole bible text. And the texts are all well supported by so many texts the truth cannot be shaken on any doctrine I have known. There is certainty in the texts of all good translations, a perfect text did not keep the Pharisees and Sadducees from getting it wrong, the truth still has to be believed. You do not have to have a perfect text to know the truth, the Bibles ‘large body’ of supportive texts make it hard to twist a doctrine just because of typos and bad translations.
Steve answered your verse references, and I would agree with Steve’s point: “Why couldn't the Latin Church have claimed, using your same arguments, that the Vulgate was the perfect and unchangeable word of God, which had been preserved and translated into the language of the Church?” BP answered:
There are those who have claimed that the Latin Vulgate was indeed the perfect standard, but the problem is that it did not match up on internal and external grounds. Externally, it was being upheld by an anti-Christian system (i.e. Romanism). Internally, it was found that there were multiple different Vulgates. Furthermore, Latin was a dying language. Therefore, on every ground, of its external circumstance and internal nature, it cannot be found to have been perfect or an enduring standard. Whereas, the King James Bible is, and is being shown self-consistently so on every ground” (BP’s response pg.3 June 28)
Again your argument begins with what we would argue is
our argument not yours, and you defend your position again with; “Whereas, the King James Bible is, and is
being shown self-consistently so on every ground”
Shown "self consistent on every ground", Is that your reason? On what ground?