PDA

View Full Version : Sadly, most Christians do not believe The Bible IS the infallible words of God.



brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 12:58 AM
Hi all. After clearing up some misunderstanding I am now able to repost this most important topic. All the links towards the later part of this article are from my own site and I wrote the articles and studies myself in an effort to show that the King James Bible is the true words of God.

"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

What Christians really believe

A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."

This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:

95% of Episcopalians,

87% of Methodists,

82% of Presbyterians,

77% of American Lutherans, and

67% of American Baptists said "No."

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 01:00 AM
No Absolute Truth

The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. HAVING A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS AVAILABLE IS A PRECIOUS TOOL IN THE STRUGLE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM." (Caps are mine)

A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance.

This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?

"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."

"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."

They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)

What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)

Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)

The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."

Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".

As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with. I did this study myself over the years. It is not a copy and paste from somebody else's site. These are my own findings.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 01:01 AM
Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 01:04 AM
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

See article on The Only Begotten Son

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.

See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments. This is not my own site. All the site does is clearly list many of the whole verses and words that are omitted in modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV. However, the words and verses are found in the NKJV.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx

For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". This is from my own site. See:

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney

IamBill
Jun 11th 2008, 02:03 AM
well, I'll say this much. The only version I've ever known is the KJ.

perhaps because of that I don't like other :hmm:

Zack702
Jun 11th 2008, 02:33 AM
I often wondered about this because when I was young I went to a camp and they gave me a KJV bible. So thats the one I have always read at times.
Thanks for the info you put together about its history.

And about my thoughts on the new versions...
I think that translating a translation can possibly lead to misconceptions and so it doesn't seam like a good idea. In fact it has always seamed silly to me.

But in a way that mystical bible alone can work wonders.
Because you can tell someone of Jesus (and maybe you do not get every detail correct) and if they consider him themselves then you have done well without a bible at all.

But if they were to turn and read a version of the bible that lead them into misconceptions I see how this is not good. That is why I stick with the older translation. But no one has ever tried to prove to me that the KJV version was or was not correctly worded and so I will read more on the comparisons you mentioned. I have much faith in the KJV translation but even if the truth was that it wasn't perfect I still have faith in its purpose.

crawfish
Jun 11th 2008, 03:35 AM
There are plenty of sites out there that document the problems with considering the KJV inerrant. It might be fair for you to try and answer those claims directly. However, I'm going a different route:

I think it's arrogant to think that the KJV is God's official, inspired version of the bible for one simple reason: there are HUNDREDS of languages on this planet, and a few of them are used more then English. If the bible was meant for all people, then why on earth would God choose one defunct version of a minority language? Do you think God plans to inspire one version for each written language on earth, or must they either learn to read ancient English or be doomed to the uninspired word?

Consider this also: english may be close to an official language in the world today, but it likely won't always be that way. What happens if english passes from common use? Don't roll your eyes - ALL of the original languages the bible was written in have passed from common use as well.

For these and more reasons, I reject that a word-for-word translation is the more inspired version or even the intent of God. The more correct translation is meaning-for-meaning; only in that sense can God's word make sense to all peoples of all languages of the world. Thus, there is no best single translation out there; there are many valid versions who communicate the truth of God's word in ways that are relevant to individuals of all stripes. As such, your consideration of "infallible" is mistaken; it's not the words that are infallible, but the meanings. How can the words stay infallible when they don't communicate what God intended?

ShirleyFord
Jun 11th 2008, 04:05 AM
Hi Will,

So good seeing you here dear brother! Haven't seen you around since the other board we were both on years ago.

Your work has always been a blessing to me.

I am old enough to remember when all of the modern versions of the Bible became popular and were allowed in the Church and the pastors finally preaching from them.

Sometime in the early 1970s, I was in a Sunday Night Training Union Class in a Southern Baptist Church during youth week where all the youth took a class during that time and one even preached and another led the choir during the worship service. Our pastor's son had our adult class. And he first read the lesson Scripture from the KJ and then the Living Bible. It sounded so strange. Our pastor commented when the class was over that what his son had read from was a new version of the Bible that they had just got into their bookstore (He and his wife also had a Bible bookstore downtown). He told us that he wouldn't advise any of us adults to read the Living Bible for our own study but that it might be a fun way to get our children to be more attentative to the reading of the word of God.

Then Jim Bakker started PTL and the Living Bible was what he used. I finally bought one and read the entire OT in just a few hours at one sitting. Wow, I thought. How refreshing that I can now understand what I'm reading. But quickly I realized that even though the Living Bible was easy to read, it was not at all easy to understand. And it was too much in just a children's story form and I didn't trust it even though I tried reading it too my children but they rejected it big time saying that they wanted me to read the Bible to them. They didn't consider the Living Bible the Bible at all but more like children's Bible story books which they didn't care for once they got use to me reading the Bible to them and having it read to them at Church and the pastor preaching from it.

I joined a Charasmatic Church in the mid 70s. Other versions were becoming popular at that time as well mainly because of PTL. But that pastor warned us to be very careful of all of these other versions that were becoming so popular. He had a degree in Greek and taught Greek in a nearby Bible College. He had studied Hebrew also. I remember way back then that he would take entire chapters in other versions and compare them to the KJ and show us how the entire meanings were changed.

If we don't have God's word today, what can we trust to be the truth? But I sincerely believe we do. And I thank God that I can trust it to be the very word of God.

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 04:17 AM
Hi Will,
... I remember way back then that he would take entire chapters in other versions and compare them to the KJ and show us how the entire meanings were changed.

If we don't have God's word today, what can we trust to be the truth? But I sincerely believe we do. And I thank God that I can trust it to be the very word of God.

Hi Shirley. Very nice to hear from you again. I totally agree with you about God's word. He has promised to preserve them in His Book and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Book.

May He continue to increase your faith and comfort your heart by an ever increasing knowledge of what He has done for us in Christ our Saviour.

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 04:20 AM
I often wondered about this because when I was young I went to a camp and they gave me a KJV bible. So thats the one I have always read at times.
Thanks for the info you put together about its history.

And about my thoughts on the new versions...
I think that translating a translation can possibly lead to misconceptions and so it doesn't seam like a good idea. In fact it has always seamed silly to me.



Hi Zack. You are most welcome. As for the modern, conflicting versions, what they have led to is unbelief in an infallible Bible. Today, instead of "Thus saith the Lord", we have the anemic "Well, how does this version render it?".

God bless,

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 04:29 AM
There are plenty of sites out there that document the problems with considering the KJV inerrant. It might be fair for you to try and answer those claims directly.

Hi Crawfish. I have seen lots of these sites and read the books by people like James White, Rick Norris, James Price, etc. Not one of these men believe that ANY bible in ANY language is the inspired, complete and 100% true words of God. Rather than posting a whole laundry list of your alleged errors in the KJB, why not just post one good one that you think you can prove to be an error?

By the way, you yourself do not believe that any Bible out there in print is the pure and perfect words of God, do you. So I suspect that instead of giving us an absolute, final and written authority to 'prove an error' in the King James Bible, you will instead only offer us your own personal preference and opinion in the matter.






I think it's arrogant to think that the KJV is God's official, inspired version of the bible for one simple reason: there are HUNDREDS of languages on this planet, and a few of them are used more then English. If the bible was meant for all people, then why on earth would God choose one defunct version of a minority language? Do you think God plans to inspire one version for each written language on earth, or must they either learn to read ancient English or be doomed to the uninspired word?

Crawfish, you ask about other languages. OK, if the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

I am frequently asked this question by other Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any bible is now the inerrant words of God.

I finally decided to put a concise answer together to respond to this common question. Here it is.

This is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.

Now that the gospel is going out to the nations, the only promise from God we have is that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.

But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude. In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Today it is only the King James Bible believer who boldly maintains that there really is an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible on this earth that a person can actually hold it in his hands and read and believe every word. All modern version proponents deny that any tangible, “hold it in your hands and read Bible” IS now the inerrant words of God.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Bible. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

To the degree that foreign language bible versions follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Bible, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJB, to that degree they are corrupt and inferiour.

I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Bible. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found the King James Bible. If there are several different versions in their own native language (Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then I would recommend they use the one that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. If they only have a translation based on the ever changing, modern Critical Texts, then they should thank God for what they do have and use it.


This is how I see it and what I believe. Not a difficult question at all.

In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

By His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney

ShirleyFord
Jun 11th 2008, 04:43 AM
Hi Shirley. Very nice to hear from you again. I totally agree with you about God's word. He has promised to preserve them in His Book and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Book.

May He continue to increase your faith and comfort your heart by an ever increasing knowledge of what He has done for us in Christ our Saviour.

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will K

Thank you Will and same to you. :)

What a comfort it has been for me during those really hard times when there was nowhere to turn and no one to help but to God and His word. If I had not known and been absolutely convinced that I had God's word, I would have quickly lost faith. But oh what joy, oh what a comfort when there was no food to feed my children, no money to pay the rent, no money to buy my children clothes and I turned to Matthew 6:25-34:

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

And how my God proved these words of His to me of His faithfulness to His word.

And so many, many other Scriptures both in the OT and NT that has been such a source of strength to me during these over 40 years walking with my Lord.

We who are born again have God's Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth. And God's word is Truth.

Shirley

daughter
Jun 11th 2008, 11:59 AM
Forty five percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God! That's amazing! In the UK I'd say less than one percent believe that.

Gentile
Jun 11th 2008, 02:32 PM
Well man wrote the bible not GOD. So I can see the doubt factor, you never know if the message from GOD was completely accurate or true. :hmm:

crawfish
Jun 11th 2008, 03:23 PM
Hi Crawfish. I have seen lots of these sites and read the books by people like James White, Rick Norris, James Price, etc. Not one of these men believe that ANY bible in ANY language is the inspired, complete and 100% true words of God. Rather than posting a whole laundry list of your alleged errors in the KJB, why not just post one good one that you think you can prove to be an error?

The belief that a word-for-word translation is the only valid translation is wrong. What we know: there are differences between the source documents. If "word-for-word" was intended by God, then he'd have the power to preserve consistency over time. Instead, it appears that was not His purpose.

The major problem is that in a strict word-for-word translation, subtle nuances are often lost. I gave an example in the other thread where the original text displayed a bit of crudity in order to get a message across; the KJV was very purposeful in ensuring that the text was always appropriate and formal, even using (already) archaic words.


By the way, you yourself do not believe that any Bible out there in print is the pure and perfect words of God, do you. So I suspect that instead of giving us an absolute, final and written authority to 'prove an error' in the King James Bible, you will instead only offer us your own personal preference and opinion in the matter.

My view of inspiration is different. God did not authorize words, he authorized meanings. This is absolutely necessary; you simply cannot translate word-for-word into other languages and keep the message consistent. To keep His word vibrant and relevant throughout history, God knew the best way was NOT to pass pure, undefiled words, but a pure message that could remain language agnostic. Certainly, it would have been possible for God to do so - the Koran is unchanged from its inception. Since God did not preserve the original texts and did not bother to enforce strict word-for-word consistency throughout time, I can only assume that it was not His purpose to do so.

I am certainly not qualified to make a judgement here; but I do have friends and acquaintances whose job is bible translation (the World Bible Translation Center in Fort Worth, TX), who have stated exactly what I said above. These are people with PhD's in Hebrew and Greek whose job is to translate the bible into new languages (many for the first time) - and they reject the KJO-viewpoint. I just wish I could get one to post here. :)


This is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.


Before Christ, the scriptures were intended for Israel and Israel alone. The NT is intended for all peoples of the world. The argument isn't valid.


The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.


We agree here...


But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

If the perfect word of God doesn't exist in its original languages, then how can the KJV possibly be the undefiled word? It was transferred from those sources!

You make a bad assumption in that there "has to be" a final authority. Why would God take four stabs at it before getting it right (the various authorized versions of the KJV)? It just makes no sense.


All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.


True - for its poetic value. I doubt you'll see anybody using it to convert space aliens. ;)

And I'm not denying its use or considering it a bad translation; I'm just saying it is no better or worse than most other translations.

The Parson
Jun 11th 2008, 04:42 PM
Well man wrote the bible not GOD. So I can see the doubt factor, you never know if the message from GOD was completely accurate or true. :hmm:Here would be the problem Gentile. Forgive me if my assumption is wrong, but you seem to believe that the Bible is meerly a book written by man. Whereas I believe that all scripture was given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost and is the tool for teaching, showing our errors against God and man, setting us on the right path, and telling us how to live for God. (2nd Timothy 3:16) Therefore, it is a book of faith because we are supposed to be creatures of faith. If you can't have the faith that God preserved His Word then how can you please God? Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Rebelnote
Jun 11th 2008, 04:55 PM
It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language.
Why? Wouldn't it be more beneficial for us to not only understand the original languages the Bible was written, but the cultures as well.
Probably the most dangerous thing about the KJV, or any English Bible is that they were westernized, and lost a lot meaning from the cultural contexts of the original translations.

And thanks crawfish for your responces. I thought they were very well put together, and same to you brandplucked. :)

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 05:21 PM
Forty five percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God! That's amazing! In the UK I'd say less than one percent believe that.

Hi daughter. That doesn't surprise me about England, however the 45% of Americans (not the clergy) are mostly made up of Christians who give a knee-jerk response to the question about "Is the Bible the inspired word of God?". If you begin to probe a little deeper about what they really believe, you will find that they are not talking about any specific Book or Bible, but rather a philosophical concept or a hypothetical idea. They don't really believe that any tangible 'hold it in your hands, read, and believe every word" type of Bible exists.

As the Barna report shows, the belief in an inerrant and inspired Bible is on its way down.

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 05:26 PM
Well man wrote the bible not GOD. So I can see the doubt factor, you never know if the message from GOD was completely accurate or true. :hmm:


Hi Gentile. If you really are a Christian (as your tag indicates) then your present position is typical of the unbelieving mindset that is spreading throughout the church today. You have fallen for the original lie - "Yea, hath God said...?". Genesis 3:1.

May God be pleased to open the eyes of your understanding and give you a knowledge of the truth in this most vital matter.

In Him,

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 06:12 PM
The belief that a word-for-word translation is the only valid translation is wrong. What we know: there are differences between the source documents. If "word-for-word" was intended by God, then he'd have the power to preserve consistency over time. Instead, it appears that was not His purpose."

Hi crawfish. My friend, you are confusing two very different issues here -#1 "word for word translation" and #2 "differences between the source documents".

Your "source documents" that make up today's modern Bible Babble are a totally confused, contradictory and every changing, nebulous mass of "Some manuscripts read", "the Hebrew is uncertain", "text seems to have been lost here", "scribal errors" and "transcriptional probabilities". Not one of your scholars has been able to put together what anybody believes is the complete, inspired and infallible Bible.

The Bible does not always and in every case have to be a "word for word" literal translation in order to be the inspired words of God. The Bible itself shows us by numerous examples that a translation into another language can be the inspired words of God.

If the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, and it does so many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

As for your "source documents" that make up today's Bible Babble, why not deal with these concrete examples and tell us which readings are the ones God inspired?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV).

And these are just a very few of literally hundreds of examples I can show you.

Thanks,

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 06:32 PM
I believe that the KJ Bible is the most accurate of all the translations. But still there are errors in it. I believe that the copies written in the original languages ARE the infallible words from God and that those copies are here today. Any Greek or Hebrew text I believe God would have protected from human error.

Hi Mikey. Sorry to break the news to you but there ARE no originals and you cannot produce for us or tell us exactly where we can find these 'infallible words" in the copies today. If you want to prove me wrong, then just tell us exactly where we can get a printed copy of the original Hebrew and Greek texts so we can compare it to whatever we are using now,OK?




Some examples of errors in the KJ bible are as follows:

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

Sabbath as used here in the original Greek is a plural word. Not a singular. If God wanted a singular word He would have wrote in as a singular word. Also the word day is added and not in the original Greek.

Mikey, I afraid you really don't know what you are talking about here. There are many examples of where singular words have plural meanings and singular words have a plural meaning. The word translated "sabbath day" has to be translated as a singular; otherwise it would make absolutely no sense at all. How could this possible make sense - "AT THAT TIME Jesus went on THE SABBATH DAYS through the corn; and his disciples...began to pluck the ears of corn. But when the Pharisees saw it they said..."

It would be totally ridiculous to say it this way. Not only does the KJB correctly have "on the sabbath day" but so do the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, etc.

You are seeing an error where none exists.

There are many Greek words that are plural in form yet are correctly rendered as a singular in English. In fact, right here in Matthew 14:6 the word "birthday" is in the plural, yet all the versions render it as a singular.

Other examples of plural nouns being translated as a singular are: heaven - Mat. 6:11; Sabbath day - Mat.12:1, 11; water - Mat. 14:29; bread - Mat. 16:7; a marriage - Mat. 22:2; heart - Mat. 18:35 (NKJV, NIV, NASB); fruit - (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV); a fever - Acts 28:8; my will - Acts 13:22; blood - John 1:13; time - 1 Tim. 2:6; door - James5:9; conversation (conduct); godliness - 2 Peter 3:11; and incense - Rev. 8:3, just to name a very few of the many examples that could be given.

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 06:42 PM
Some examples of errors in the KJ bible are as follows:


Ps 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

Here in the original Hebrew the word generations is singular. Why is it singular? A thousand generation? That doesn't sound right. A thousand is definitely plural so why singular for generation? Maybe perhaps the number thousand is spiritual language for complete or total.


Rom 4:3 Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.

In this verse the word "and" is sometimes translated as "for". The word "it" is also a problem. "It" is a pronoun in the third person singular so it should be translated as "He". It should read like this:

Abraham believed God, for He was imputed unto him for righteousness.

There are other examples but this is enough to prove that there are errors in the KJ as well.

Mikey. The only thing you have proven here is that you have placed your own mind and very weird understanding above any written Bible in print. All the other bible versions read the same way as the KJB in these places, but YOU tell us they are wrong.

You have no complete, inspired and inerrant words of God to recommend to anyone, and unless we were to actually fall for the really strange things you say here and come to you for the true text and meaning, neither would we have the true words of God either.

Your post reminds me of the verse in Judges 21:25 - "And in those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Will K

Sketch
Jun 11th 2008, 06:53 PM
I agree with Crawfish 100 percent.



In fact, brandplucked, I don't read the New King James Bible, and I'll tell you this much: I am your brother in Christ, and I'm being sanctified in the Lord every day, like you are. I have revelations and understandings that I gain from reading my Bible (the one next to me is the NIV).

My bible says that He is the Savior, it also says He is the Son of God. My bible says that He must increase, and I must decrease. My bible tells me that if I don't have love, I've missed the point. My bible is the Word of God, and it says the exact same things the NKJ does, and I'm proud to read it every single day.


(And, I refer all logistics to Crawfish's last post.)




-Casey

crawfish
Jun 11th 2008, 06:58 PM
Hi crawfish. My friend, you are confusing two very different issues here -#1 "word for word translation" and #2 "differences between the source documents".

But: the KJV is, for the most part, a literal word-for-word translation. Only in parts where the word-for-word translation became COMPLETE nonsense did they alter this approach. However, in places where some meaning could be derived by the words they were kept - even when that meaning missed out on nuances of the original text. Which, by the way, the KJV translators were not qualified to judge anyway because few were students of ancient culture in any real way.

As such, it automatically becomes "less than perfect" because it loses meaning from the original text.



Your "source documents" that make up today's modern Bible Babble are a totally confused, contradictory and every changing, nebulous mass of "Some manuscripts read", "the Hebrew is uncertain", "text seems to have been lost here", "scribal errors" and "transcriptional probabilities". Not one of your scholars has been able to put together what anybody believes is the complete, inspired and infallible Bible.

You obviously put a lot of trust in the documents the KJV was translated from; some view those sources as being derived from less reliable manuscripts.

In any case, many of the fragments and scripture we've found since the JKV was finished are of equal age or older than its source documents. Good thing that none of the differences found alter our Christian theology in any sense.

I'm sorry if I seem to be making light of most of your arguments. It's just that they are of scant matter to my personal arguments.

markedward
Jun 11th 2008, 07:06 PM
I don't need a whole list to know that the KJV isn't infallible. I only need one verse:

Acts 12:4 - Calls Passover as "Easter." That's just plain wrong.

I think the KJV is a good English translation of the Bible, but in my opinion, it's incredibly ignorant to dismiss faults (like the one above) and say it's perfect or without error.

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 07:11 PM
I agree with Crawfish 100 percent.



In fact, brandplucked, I don't read the New King James Bible, and I'll tell you this much: I am your brother in Christ, and I'm being sanctified in the Lord every day, like you are. I have revelations and understandings that I gain from reading my Bible (the one next to me is the NIV).

My bible says that He is the Savior, it also says He is the Son of God. My bible says that He must increase, and I must decrease. My bible tells me that if I don't have love, I've missed the point. My bible is the Word of God, and it says the exact same things the NKJ does, and I'm proud to read it every single day.

-Casey

Hi Casey. Thanks for your comments. I do not deny that you are a brother in the Lord and I'm sure God has revealed a lot of truth to you. I thank God for this and rejoice with you in our Saviour.

However there are some things you should be aware of about the NIV. It is missing some 60,000 words and it never teaches that Jesus Christ is the "only begotten Son" of God. The NIV teaches that Christ had "origins" in Michah 5:2 and that there was a day when God became His Father in Acts 13:33 (not following any Greek text) - just like the Jehovah Witness 'bible', showing that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, and that He was a created being.

The NIV frequently rejects the Hebrew readings and adds their own, or just makes them up. If you want to keep using the NIV, go right ahead. I certainly can't stop you from using it, but if you think the NIV "says the exact same things the NKJ" (By the way, I do not defend the NKJV as the infallible words of God) then you really should take a look at this site and then retract your statement.

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible (and the NKJV too). It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link:

http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx


Thanks,

Will K

The Parson
Jun 11th 2008, 07:11 PM
I agree with Crawfish 100 percent.



In fact, brandplucked, I don't read the New King James Bible, and I'll tell you this much: I am your brother in Christ, and I'm being sanctified in the Lord every day, like you are. I have revelations and understandings that I gain from reading my Bible (the one next to me is the NIV).

My bible says that He is the Savior, it also says He is the Son of God. My bible says that He must increase, and I must decrease. My bible tells me that if I don't have love, I've missed the point. My bible is the Word of God, and it says the exact same things the NKJ does, and I'm proud to read it every single day.

(And, I refer all logistics to Crawfish's last post.)

-CaseyI think however you just made brandplucked's point for him Casey. Santification, the same as salvation isn't a process. Either you are or you aren't. For instance, in your NIV, read 1st Corinthians 1:18 or Hebrews 10:14. Your book says being saved or being sanctified. This is from the Alexandrian text which is supposed to be a clarified text from the original letters. Yet Origin, who made these changes didn't believe in instant and spiritual Salvation nor Sanctification. Yet the KJ which was taken from the original letters says we are saved and we are sanctified.

1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Next I want you to look at 2nd Samuel 21:19 and tell me who it was that slew Goliath. It was David wasn't it?

And then there are the verses which I believe are paramount to our understanding of who Jesus is and why he came and about forgiveness. Would you look these up for me in your NIV please? They are: Matthew 18:11, 1st John 5:7, & Mark 11:26.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
1st John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

We also know that Jesus was God in the flesh because of 1st Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Would you tell me what your bible says in 1st Timothy 3:16?

The Parson
Jun 11th 2008, 07:17 PM
Forgive me for any offense I may give with this statement but if one more person makes the accusation of bible worship I think I'm going to bust. If we love God we must be stubborn with a Holy stubborness about His Word. If a point can't be made without name calling I will be handing out infractions. No if's, ands, or buts about it. Thank you

fewarechosen
Jun 11th 2008, 07:17 PM
the bible is scripture about the word --the word is god

there will be no bibles in heaven
the law is written in our hearrts and in our minds

now yes i believe scripture to be inspired writings from men given by god

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

many will take this in many different ways

but just remember god did not say nothing can be added or taken away from this book --he could have but he didnt --he wants our faith to be in him not a book
a book will not save you

tgallison
Jun 11th 2008, 07:22 PM
But: the KJV is, for the most part, a literal word-for-word translation. Only in parts where the word-for-word translation became COMPLETE nonsense did they alter this approach. However, in places where some meaning could be derived by the words they were kept - even when that meaning missed out on nuances of the original text. Which, by the way, the KJV translators were not qualified to judge anyway because few were students of ancient culture in any real way.

As such, it automatically becomes "less than perfect" because it loses meaning from the original text.



You obviously put a lot of trust in the documents the KJV was translated from; some view those sources as being derived from less reliable manuscripts.

In any case, many of the fragments and scripture we've found since the JKV was finished are of equal age or older than its source documents. Good thing that none of the differences found alter our Christian theology in any sense.

I'm sorry if I seem to be making light of most of your arguments. It's just that they are of scant matter to my personal arguments.

crawfish greetings

Your argument is that God was not able to keep his word pure, for if it isn't the KJV, there is no other to take its place.

It was authorized the way God would have it done, by a King. We know a corrupt King, but a king no less. There never was an earthly King that was not corrupt.

I for 1 find the KJV to be the pure word of God.

terrell

IamBill
Jun 11th 2008, 07:23 PM
I agree, My point was simply that we have the word (KJ -IMO) and we have the Word (Jesus)

fewarechosen
Jun 11th 2008, 07:29 PM
ok same passage 2 different bible translations
but vast difference in meaning


And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire

one says the ten horns upon the beasts head will hate the whore

the other says the beast AND the ten horns will hate the whore

HUUUUUUGE difference
-- now ask yourself are bibles infallable
the holy spirit is what discerns whats right

i pretty much read the kjv and check it with the greek and take both with a grain of salt for just as mistranslations happen now i dont doubt they could have happend back then --i have never seen the actual hand written letters by the apostles

tgallison
Jun 11th 2008, 08:07 PM
ok same passage 2 different bible translations
but vast difference in meaning


And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire

one says the ten horns upon the beasts head will hate the whore

the other says the beast AND the ten horns will hate the whore

HUUUUUUGE difference
-- now ask yourself are bibles infallable
the holy spirit is what discerns whats right

i pretty much read the kjv and check it with the greek and take both with a grain of salt for just as mistranslations happen now i dont doubt they could have happend back then --i have never seen the actual hand written letters by the apostles

Don't see any difference, the one clarifies that the ten kings are riding upon the head of Satan, or are his crown. The second translation doesn't really show that. But it does show that the ten kings and Satan are in agreement.

fewarechosen
Jun 11th 2008, 08:20 PM
Don't see any difference, the one clarifies that the ten kings are riding upon the head of Satan, or are his crown. The second translation doesn't really show that. But it does show that the ten kings and Satan are in agreement.

hmm ok if thats what you see

but one does not say the beast hates the whore at all
it says the horns do

the other says the horns and the beast do

and notice you yourself just said it doesnt really show that

but the holy spirit assures me there is a huge difference

fewarechosen
Jun 11th 2008, 08:30 PM
if you say take the tongue that is upon the beast and make soup

that is very different

from saying take the beast and the tongue and make soup

John146
Jun 11th 2008, 08:31 PM
I think however you just made brandplucked's point for him Casey. Santification, the same as salvation isn't a process. Either you are or you aren't. For instance, in your NIV, read 1st Corinthians 1:18 or Hebrews 10:14. Your book says being saved or being sanctified. This is from the Alexandrian text which is supposed to be a clarified text from the original letters. Yet Origin, who made these changes didn't believe in instant and spiritual Salvation nor Sanctification. Yet the KJ which was taken from the original letters says we are saved and we are sanctified.

1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

But the NIV does have other verses that teach that we are saved and are sanctified, so while I can understand your questioning of those particular verses it's not as though an effort was made to completely remove any references or suggestions that we are saved and are sanctified.

2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: - 1 Cor 1:2 (NIV)

11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." - Acts 15:11 (NIV)



Next I want you to look at 2nd Samuel 21:19 and tell me who it was that slew Goliath. It was David wasn't it?The NIV does have a footnote for that verse that says this, "Hebrew and Septuagint; 1 Chron. 20:5 son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath". Now, why they didn't just go ahead and translate it as "the brother of Goliath" instead of "Goliath", I have no idea.

And then there are the verses which I believe are paramount to our understanding of who Jesus is and why he came and about forgiveness. Would you look these up for me in your NIV please? They are: Matthew 18:11, 1st John 5:7, & Mark 11:26.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
1st John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

We also know that Jesus was God in the flesh because of 1st Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Would you tell me what your bible says in 1st Timothy 3:16?
In fairness, the NIV does have footnotes for 1 Tim 3:16 regarding "He" being "God" in some manuscripts and a footnote next to "in a body" that says "Or in the flesh". Also, John 1 from the NIV makes it clear that Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:14), so even if you don't like its rendering of 1 Tim 3:16, the fact is that the NIV does teach that Jesus is God in the flesh. Similarly, even though you have an issue with the NIV rendering of 1 John 5:7, the NIV does teach that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one" and the terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" are used interchangeably (Romans 8:9).

Honestly, I think you are nitpicking here. I have a Parallel Bible and read both the KJV and NIV. I believe both are good reliable translations. I certainly see no real concrete evidence to suggest that the NIV either does not teach any critical doctrines accurately, leaves any critical doctrines out altogether, or teaches outright false doctrine. Yes, there are issues here and there but I believe one can come to the truth from reading it. I did.

The Parson
Jun 11th 2008, 08:41 PM
Not trying to knitpick at all. If you were about to buy a new car and a friend tells you that the one you are considering doesn't come equipt with a rear end or transmission, would you tell your friend that he is knitpicking & still buy it?

And if a friend were to tell you that the very instrument of your salvation (the Blood of the Lamb of God) was removed from parts of your bible, would you be angry with your friend? Small favor and then I'll leave you alone on the matter. Read this verse and then look it up in your bible. Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

What difference do you see?

tgallison
Jun 11th 2008, 08:54 PM
hmm ok if thats what you see

but one does not say the beast hates the whore at all
it says the horns do

the other says the horns and the beast do

and notice you yourself just said it doesnt really show that

but the holy spirit assures me there is a huge difference

Well if you take notice the KJV gives you the complete story, the other leaves part out.

The Parson
Jun 11th 2008, 09:01 PM
Well if you take notice the KJV gives you the complete story, the other leaves part out.
Do you mean things like:
Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. KJV (the Saviors purpose)
Luke 9:56 and they went to another village. NIV (whoops, where did the Saviors purpose go?)

or

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. (John standing on the sand)

Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. NIV (The Dragon standing on the sand)

or

Isaiah 9:3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. (joy not increased)

Isaiah 9:3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. (joy increased)

or on and on and on....

fewarechosen
Jun 11th 2008, 09:16 PM
ok now do we assume that no error was made from the original hand written documents to the kjv ?

or do we look and say hey well we know there are mistranslations now so there could have been then
and rely on the holy spirit

or do we just assume that the kjv is somehow the magic bible

i dont see anywhere in scripture where it says trust the kjv

my only warning is the one in revelations about being able to add unto this book

i just thank god that his law is written in my heart and mind

many people have scripture but not many have the holy spirit

John146
Jun 11th 2008, 09:20 PM
Not trying to knitpick at all. If you were about to buy a new car and a friend tells you that the one you are considering doesn't come equipt with a rear end or transmission, would you tell your friend that he is knitpicking & still buy it?

And if a friend were to tell you that the very instrument of your salvation (the Blood of the Lamb of God) was removed from parts of your bible, would you be angry with your friend? Small favor and then I'll leave you alone on the matter. Read this verse and then look it up in your bible. Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

What difference do you see?


I understand your points. Really, I do. But I'm not sure if you're getting my point. What critical doctrine do you know of that is not taught in the NIV?

To answer your question regarding Col 1:14, the NIV does include a footnote that says, "A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood". So, the phrase was not contained in the manuscripts they translated from, but they at least included that it is found in some manuscripts.

Also, the NIV does teach elsewhere that redemption comes through Christ's blood so it's not as if they made an effort to remove that doctrine from scripture.

7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. - Ephesians 1:7-8 (NIV)

12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. - Hebrews 9:12 (NIV)

daughter
Jun 11th 2008, 09:27 PM
A major problem I've had with the NIV is the fact that they routinely refuse to translate the word Hades as Hell, and instead transliterate it. That diminishes the impact of the term, in a BIG way.

tgallison
Jun 11th 2008, 09:39 PM
ok now do we assume that no error was made from the original hand written documents to the kjv ?

or do we look and say hey well we know there are mistranslations now so there could have been then
and rely on the holy spirit

or do we just assume that the kjv is somehow the magic bible

i dont see anywhere in scripture where it says trust the kjv

my only warning is the one in revelations about being able to add unto this book

i just thank god that his law is written in my heart and mind

many people have scripture but not many have the holy spirit

The majority of Christians relied on the KJV for 300 plus years. Along came Westcott, Hort, and Smith, and now we have untold numbers of translations. Is that good?

If you were Satan and you wanted to cause confusion with the Word of God, what would you do?

I think I will stick with my KJV, it has proven reliable.

One other thing. What person that believes the word of God would want to take a chance at being at the end of God's wrath for adding or taking away from the Bible.

daughter
Jun 11th 2008, 09:52 PM
One thing I have realised... if God is capable of creating the universe, the world, and everything in it, if He can raise the dead... is He not also capable of preserving His truth through history?

The whole purpose of writing in the first place was in order that we could have a written language in which the Bible would be written down. It's interesting that the written word is only exactly as old as the Bible account of human history...

matthew94
Jun 11th 2008, 09:59 PM
One thing I have realised... if God is capable of creating the universe, the world, and everything in it, if He can raise the dead... is He not also capable of preserving His truth through history?


Of course He is. We all agree on that! That question is HOW does He preserve His truth. Some say through the KJV translation. Some say through the variety of translations. Some say through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some say through textual criticism. Etc.

fewarechosen
Jun 11th 2008, 10:14 PM
The majority of Christians relied on the KJV for 300 plus years. Along came Westcott, Hort, and Smith, and now we have untold numbers of translations. Is that good?

If you were Satan and you wanted to cause confusion with the Word of God, what would you do?

I think I will stick with my KJV, it has proven reliable.

One other thing. What person that believes the word of God would want to take a chance at being at the end of God's wrath for adding or taking away from the Bible.

hey dont get me wrong i like my kjv backed with greek
but my point is that scripture can be messed with

and someone doesnt have to believe in god to mess with scripture

and i agree if i was satan i would try to influence the very first person who copied the original letters and everyone since

so dont get me wrong i dont like any translation i would prefer the original letters
but we make do
and its ok cause we have the holy spirit to discern for us

ShirleyFord
Jun 11th 2008, 10:22 PM
I don't need a whole list to know that the KJV isn't infallible. I only need one verse:

Acts 12:4 - Calls Passover as "Easter." That's just plain wrong.

I think the KJV is a good English translation of the Bible, but in my opinion, it's incredibly ignorant to dismiss faults (like the one above) and say it's perfect or without error.

Mark,

The KJB is the only version that has this verse correct.

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Notice that it was the days of unleavened bread not a single day.

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The days of unleaven bread were 7 days. The passover lamb was killed on the first day of unleaven bread on the14th day of the month at evening before the fifteenth day began around 6:00 PM (remember each day began at night and ended the next night when a new day began). The second day of unleavened bread was the Feast of Passover.

Exodus 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying,

2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.

10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.

11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.



We see the same when our Lord was crucified:

Mt 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

Mk 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Lk 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Lk 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

Jn 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.


That sabbath day a high day was not the weekly sabbath but the yearly sabbath of the Feast of Passover when the passover was eaten.

(I wondered for many years why Easter was called Passover when we celebrated Christ's resurrection of Easter Sunday.)

Some reason that Herod didn't want to offend the Jews by killing Peter during their religious observances of Passover. But that makes no sense since the Jews didn't have any problem killing our Lord on passover the first day of unleavened bread. They had already killed James during the days of unleavened bread which had pleased the Jews.

Look it up. Easter was a pagan high holy day of Rome to worship their gods.

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 10:46 PM
Do you mean things like:
Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. KJV (the Saviors purpose)
Luke 9:56 and they went to another village. NIV (whoops, where did the Saviors purpose go?)

or

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. (John standing on the sand)

Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. NIV (The Dragon standing on the sand)

or

Isaiah 9:3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. (joy not increased)

Isaiah 9:3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. (joy increased)

or on and on and on....


Exactly, brother. Here are just a handful of the hundreds of examples of how the NIV perverts the true words of God.

Psalm 60:4 "Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, THAT IT MAY BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE TRUTH. Selah."

So read the Hebrew texts as well as the following Bible translations: Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, KJB , Youngs', Darby, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the Complete Jewish Bible.

The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 is the same as the KJB with "Has dado a los que te temen bandera que alcen por causa de la verdad. Selah".

However, the NIV reads: - "But for those who fear you, you have raised a banner TO BE UNFURLED AGAINST THE BOW." The RSV, NRSV, ESV read much the same with: "Thou hast set up a banner for those who fear thee, TO RALLY TO IT FROM THE BOW.", but then in the RSV, NRSV footnotes tell us this totally different reading comes from "the Greek LXX, the Syriac and Jerome, but the Hebrew says 'Truth'."

Well, not even their footnote is totally accurate. The copy of the Greek LXX I have says "given a TOKEN...that they might FLEE FROM THE BOW", while Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says the opposite with: "Thou hast wrought a miracle to them that reverence thee, so that they need NOT FLEE FROM THE BOW."

The Holman Standard basically keeps with this NIV perversion and says: "You have given a signal flag to those who fear You, so that THEY CAN FLEE BEFORE THE ARCHERS." These new bogus bibles are significant in that TRUTH has disappeared, and God's people are now fleeing before the enemy!!

In Psalms 145:13 the NIV adds 15 words to the standard Hebrew text. These additional words are not found in the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, Hebrew Names Version or any Jewish translation. The NIV adds "The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made."

Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

. This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 10:49 PM
It diminishes your view of what Hades is... The NIV translators are perfectly just in leaving it untranslated since 'Hell' is an interpretation, not a translation.



Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be TUNRED INTO HELL, and all the nations that forget God.

This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, MKJV, KJV 21, TMB, Websters, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Italian Diodati, and the Geneva Bible.

The NASB and ESV give a different meaning with: The wicked shall RETURN TO SHEOL, and all the nations that forget God. But the most outrageous is the NIV with: The wicked RETURN TO THE GRAVE, and all the nations that forget God. You cannot Return to a place unless you have been there before. The false teaching of reincarnation can be taught from the NIV, but not from the KJB. Also, if the wicked "return to the grave" what distinguishes them from the righteous, who also go to the grave? The NIV destroys the correct meaning of this verse. The word Hell occurs 31 times in the KJB Old Testament; 19 times in the NKJV, but in the NASB, NIV the word Hell is found zero times. Now who do you suppose would want to get rid of the word Hell?

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 11th 2008, 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by daughter
One thing I have realised... if God is capable of creating the universe, the world, and everything in it, if He can raise the dead... is He not also capable of preserving His truth through history?




Of course He is. We all agree on that! That question is HOW does He preserve His truth. Some say through the KJV translation. Some say through the variety of translations. Some say through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some say through textual criticism. Etc.

Brother Matthew. You have just revealed the total uncertainty and confusion that exists today. "Some say this, and some say that, and some say something else" and you end up being a Bible agnostic. This is why the belief in an inspired and inerrant Bible is in a free fall.

God said it would happen. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of God." Amos 8:8

How can we have a famine in the midst of 200 plus English bible versions? Easy, people don't believe any of them are the infallible words of God, people read them less and less, and the true Bible is mocked and rejected.

Will K

crawfish
Jun 11th 2008, 11:22 PM
Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be TUNRED INTO HELL, and all the nations that forget God.

This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, MKJV, KJV 21, TMB, Websters, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Italian Diodati, and the Geneva Bible.

The NASB and ESV give a different meaning with: The wicked shall RETURN TO SHEOL, and all the nations that forget God. But the most outrageous is the NIV with: The wicked RETURN TO THE GRAVE, and all the nations that forget God. You cannot Return to a place unless you have been there before. The false teaching of reincarnation can be taught from the NIV, but not from the KJB. Also, if the wicked "return to the grave" what distinguishes them from the righteous, who also go to the grave? The NIV destroys the correct meaning of this verse. The word Hell occurs 31 times in the KJB Old Testament; 19 times in the NKJV, but in the NASB, NIV the word Hell is found zero times. Now who do you suppose would want to get rid of the word Hell?

Will K

I would argue that the NIV uses the more accurate translation here. To use the NIV text as proof of reincarnation would be a misuse of the scripture by taking it out of context.

Which seems to be a common problem when you're demonstrating the problems you see with the NIV. In a meaning-to-meaning translation you will not necessarily hold the integrity of each verse; but isn't a verse a manufactured (and not inspired) entity? By opening up to context, the wider view will keep the slight changes from taking on undesired meaning. In fact, it should (in theory) keep us from trying to pore through individual words to divine meaning, instead holding to the more holistic view of seeing the verses in relation to their scriptural context.

Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 11:31 PM
The majority of Christians relied on the KJV for 300 plus years. Along came Westcott, Hort, and Smith, and now we have untold numbers of translations. Is that good?

If you were Satan and you wanted to cause confusion with the Word of God, what would you do?

I think I will stick with my KJV, it has proven reliable.

I used the KJV for years. But my spiritual growth coincided with my change to the NASB. Not that the version had that much to do with it. But it's worth repeating. The NASB has proven very reliable and for that reason, I will stick with it.


One other thing. What person that believes the word of God would want to take a chance at being at the end of God's wrath for adding or taking away from the Bible.


Indeed! However, if you are suggesting other translations are guilty of this, then keep in mind the KJV was "diligently compared and revised with previous translations". It use to be written in from of most KJV's but is not anymore. The KJV is not the bible as it was given to man. It is a translation of the bible. It is no different that the modern translations as far as being a bible goes. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

Gulah Papyrus
Jun 11th 2008, 11:58 PM
I like them all.:)

To the OP, not trying to stump you, I'm just curious. How come in Psalm 8:2 it reads -

out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength -

...but when Jesus quotes the verse in Matthew 21:16 it reads -

Yea:have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise -

:hmm:

markedward
Jun 12th 2008, 12:02 AM
Mark,

The KJB is the only version that has this verse correct.You presented two points of evidence to support the "Easter" translation:

First, you say Herod was a pagan, and thus had no respect for Jewish holidays. This is historically inaccurate: most ancient sources depict Herod as a secularist, not a pagan. Aside from that, he was the ruler of the Jewish people; he would have almost been politically required to honor the Jewish festivals to prevent from stirring up trouble with the Jews and thus with Rome itself. Besides, the general Roman rule was to respect all religions; if Herod had been a Roman pagan, he would likely have followed this rule as well. Further, there isn't any historical record of worship of Ishtar/Ashtarte in Israel during the time of Herod's rule. Aside from that; trying to attribute "Easter" as the name of a festival in the first century is an anachronism. The English word "Easter" (as in, the word used in the KJV) is derived from the Old English word Eastre, which drawn from the name of a month on the Germanic calendar, Eostur-monath, which itself is sometimes considered to be derived from a goddess of Anglo-Saxon origin, Eostre.

Second, you say that Peter was imprisoned after the day of Passover, during "the days of unleavened bread," so the used of the word pascha (Passover) in Greek could only refer to a day after "the days of the unleavened bread." Well, for one, the Passover is the first day of "the days of unleavened bread." Because of this, the whole week was called "the Passover week," or just "Passover" for short. Basically, "the days of the unleavened bread" and "Passover" are synonymous. This interchangeability of "Passover" with the whole week (the "days of unleavened bread") is found as early as Ezekiel 45:21, which was written during the Babylonian Exile (c. 570-580 BC), where he calls the Passover" a feast lasting seven days." Luke 22:1 also displays this interchangeability, where the verse says "the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called Passover." The term "Passover" began to be used in both a specific sense (the actual day of Passover, the first day of the seven days) and a generic sense (the whole week of Passover; re: Ezekiel 45:21, Luke 22:1). It's very possible that Luke's use of Passover in Acts 12:4 is the generic sense for referring to the whole week.

Finally, the Greek word being translated here is pascha. This word is translated 28 other times in the KJV as "Passover." Only once does the translation of pascha deviate, and that is in Acts 12:4, where it is arbitrarily translated as "Easter." If the exact same word is being used and it is translated as "Passover" in 28 of 29 uses, there's no reason for it to be translated differently in this one case, especially since the given timing of the events was during the time of Passover. The very word itself, pascha is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew term, pecach, which specifically refers to the Passover (i.e., it is the Greek word for "Passover"). The author of Acts was obviously fluent in Greek, and he apparently knew quite a bit about various non-Jewish cultures. In that case... why didn't he just use the Greek word for "Easter" to begin with? Considering the timing of the events (Passover week), it would have been really misleading for him to use the word for Passover if he didn't intend for it to refer to Passover itself.

All in all, "Easter" is not the correct translation in Acts 12:4.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 12:15 AM
I used the KJV for years. But my spiritual growth coincided with my change to the NASB. Not that the version had that much to do with it. But it's worth repeating. The NASB has proven very reliable and for that reason, I will stick with it.

Indeed! However, if you are suggesting other translations are guilty of this, then keep in mind the KJV was "diligently compared and revised with previous translations". It use to be written in from of most KJV's but is not anymore. The KJV is not the bible as it was given to man. It is a translation of the bible. It is no different that the modern translations as far as being a bible goes. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

If the KJB was not translated by authority of God, those translators will have to answer to God.

I know that all modern translations had their beginnings with Westcott, Hort, and Smith and I also know the best way to destroy the authority of the Bible is to change the reading and put a new translation out every month.

terrell

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 12:19 AM
If the KJB was not translated by authority of God, those translators will have to answer to God.

I know that all modern translations had their beginnings with Westcott, Hort, and Smith and I also know the best way to destroy the authority of the Bible is to change the reading and put a new translation out every month.

terrell

There were English translations prior to the KJV. I already said that though. All translators will answer to God where they put their own bias in. New translations don't destroy the authority of scripture. Rather, they provide more bibles to read! Some that will never read a KJV will read an NIV and in so doing, will be nourished in their spirit. The KJV is just a translation. It's not the original language. It's no different than some of the other word for word translations.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 12:35 AM
There were English translations prior to the KJV. I already said that though. All translators will answer to God where they put their own bias in. New translations don't destroy the authority of scripture. Rather, they provide more bibles to read! Some that will never read a KJV will read an NIV and in so doing, will be nourished in their spirit. The KJV is just a translation. It's not the original language. It's no different than some of the other word for word translations.

If it wasn't for the KJB I wouldn't know that Elihu was in God's place.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 12:38 AM
If it wasn't for the KJB I wouldn't know that Elihu was in God's place.

Glad God was able to use it to bless you. He used the NASB for me. If it wasn't for the NASB I would probably still be tied up in religion instead of tied up in God.

DeadtoSin
Jun 12th 2008, 12:44 AM
If it wasn't for the KJB I wouldn't know that Elihu was in God's place.

I guess I'm the weird one out of the whole bunch. I do not have a translation of choice. I like the NKJV, NIV, KJV, NASB all of them. I have all of them in my house somewhere or another I think, and I think all of them are pretty spectacular translations. I think this way particularly because they can hold up at all under the amazing scrutiny and study the Bible has been under since the first words were written on paper.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 01:00 AM
I guess I'm the weird one out of the whole bunch. I do not have a translation of choice. I like the NKJV, NIV, KJV, NASB all of them. I have all of them in my house somewhere or another I think, and I think all of them are pretty spectacular translations. I think this way particularly because they can hold up at all under the amazing scrutiny and study the Bible has been under since the first words were written on paper.

Well If you don't like one one says, you can always jump to another one.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 01:02 AM
Well If you don't like one one says, you can always jump to another one.

Or perhaps he can get a clearer understanding of what the original language actually was saying.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 01:09 AM
Or perhaps he can get a clearer understanding of what the original language actually was saying.

What do you tell a new Christian when he says what Bible shall I purchase.

This week you can say get all 40 of them, and then next week you can tell him to get all sixty of them.

We are probably gone to have to agree to disagree.

terrell

DeadtoSin
Jun 12th 2008, 01:14 AM
Well If you don't like one one says, you can always jump to another one.

I find I don't like a lot of what the Bible has to say. I don't like that I'm a sinner. I don't like that a perfect sinless beautiful man had to die for me. I don't like that I've caused God grief and anguish.

However, this seems to be a recurring theme in all of the versions, and whether or not I like it...the reality is it is true.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 01:17 AM
What do you tell a new Christian when he says what Bible shall I purchase.

This week you can say get all 40 of them, and then next week you can tell him to get all sixty of them.

We are probably gone to have to agree to disagree.

terrell

I tell him to buy the NASB. There are two basic kinds of translations. One is word for word and the other is the NIV.

But hey, I am mostly for whatever translation he will read. Because in it he will learn of Jesus and the cross and many other wonderful truths.

As I said, my growth was stunted with the KJV. I grew up lost in a KJV only church. When God saved me and moved me to another church, he showed me a man that walked in the true power of God. He used the NASB. All the KJV only arguments weren't near as convincing as this man's walk with the Lord. Obviously, God strengthened the man strongly through the NASB.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 01:52 AM
I tell him to buy the NASB. There are two basic kinds of translations. One is word for word and the other is the NIV.

But hey, I am mostly for whatever translation he will read. Because in it he will learn of Jesus and the cross and many other wonderful truths.

As I said, my growth was stunted with the KJV. I grew up lost in a KJV only church. When God saved me and moved me to another church, he showed me a man that walked in the true power of God. He used the NASB. All the KJV only arguments weren't near as convincing as this man's walk with the Lord. Obviously, God strengthened the man strongly through the NASB.

I hear where you are coming from. It sounds like it has more to do with a dead church versus a live church that was run by a spirit filled man. Doesn't necessarily have to do with translations.

matthew94
Jun 12th 2008, 01:52 AM
Brother Matthew. You have just revealed the total uncertainty and confusion that exists today. "Some say this, and some say that, and some say something else" and you end up being a Bible agnostic. This is why the belief in an inspired and inerrant Bible is in a free fall.


Will,

Your argument doesn't stick. I, and millions of other Christians, are proof that just b/c we don't believe there is 1 perfect english translation that doesn't necessitate that we end up 'Bible agnostics'

In Christ,
matthew

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 01:57 AM
I hear where you are coming from. It sounds like it has more to do with a dead church versus a live church that was run by a spirit filled man. Doesn't necessarily have to do with translations.

That is exactly my point. The translations have less to do with our relationship with God than does our heart. The KJV is an awesome translation and I would recommend it to anyone that enjoys that kind of reading. But with a heart that is really submissive to God, one can know God through an NASB or some of the other versions as well. Thank you for the graciousness of your response.

DeadtoSin
Jun 12th 2008, 02:04 AM
I'll always have a NKJV and a NIV in my collection. They are both my buddies.
:D
And I have not really touched on the topic. I do think it is very said that Christians can't believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. What do they think they are trusting in?

I think what it boils down to is, they believe the convenient parts and cut out the parts that make them uncomfortable. When you refuse to believe even a verse of the Bible though, you are making the whole thing out to be inaccurate.

fewarechosen
Jun 12th 2008, 02:06 AM
personally when someone asks me about bibles i always tell them get a kjv and a greek interlinear then i tell them in my opinion and understanding alot of the others are watered down and that even within the kjv certain greek words will need to be looked up.


more and more i like to read the greek now . then just mesh it with kjv when i get sort of lost.

and dead to sin when you ask what do i think i am trusting in -- i say god through the holy spirit --he has proven to me how translators can be off --so i have faith in him

IamBill
Jun 12th 2008, 02:55 AM
Out of curiosity, has anyone heard of the one titled - "The WORD" ,and subtitled - the Bible from 26 translations ???

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 04:08 AM
I used the KJV for years. But my spiritual growth coincided with my change to the NASB. Not that the version had that much to do with it. But it's worth repeating. The NASB has proven very reliable and for that reason, I will stick with it.



Hi Mark. You, of couse, can stick to anything you want, but the NASB is surely not the complete, inspired and inerrant word of God. It has a lot of very serious errors and it keeps changing its text every few years.

All you have is your own personal preference,but I'll bet not even you believe the NASB is the infallible words of God.

If interested, here is a link to my own webpage where I myself have done this study showing how the NASB keeps changing its own text every few years and is by no means as "literal" as people claim it to be. It is just another fake bible version, but you can use it if you choose to do so.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/whbins.html

Did you know your NASB teaches that God was deceived by the children of Israel? Check out Psalm 78:36. Not even the NIV goes this far there.




Will K

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 04:14 AM
Hi Mark. You bring up some good points about Easter. However you are not totally correct about the origin of this word and its meanings. There is another view than the one presented earlier about why the word Easter is correct. I, of course, believe the King James Bible got it right.

Is the word "Easter" an error in the King James Bible?
In Acts 12:4 we are told of Peter being taken prisoner by Herod. “Then were the days of unleavened bread. And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha. Some say the word should only be translated as Passover and not Easter. The KJV is not alone in translating this word as Easter. The Tyndale 1525, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s, Cranmer, the Great Bible (which preceeded the KJB), Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as Easter. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4. When the Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "easter" was changed to "passover." Likewise the modern KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible both read "after Easter" in Acts 12:4.

The Oxford English dictionary tells us that "Easter is one of the great festivals of the Christian church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish Passover, the name of which (Easter) it bears in most of the European languages. Greek -paska; Hebrew - pe'sah; Latin - pascha; French - pagues; Italian - Pasqua; Spanish - pascua."

Right here in my personal study I have a copy of Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English desk dictionary 1974. If you look under the English word Easter on page 99 it has one word only as its translation and meaning - Pasxa (paska). Likewise when we look at the Greek part of this book under the word Pasxa on page 634 there is once again only one definition of this word given - Easter. This is what the word means in Greek today.

The Oxford English dictionary also lists many early English literary sources that employed the word Easter to refer to the Resurrection. Among them are the following: 890 A.D. Aelfred Baeda "le dar tide Eastrena ecelice healdan wille"; 1123 A.D. Old English Chronicles, 1200, 1250, 1300; 1389 in English Gild 'be soneday fourthnythe after Easterne"; 1175 A.D. Lamb Homilies 45 "uwile sonnedei is to locan alswa Ester dei"; 1200 Trin. Coll. Homily "Forte pene puresdai biforen Estrene dai"; 1398 A.D. Trevira Barth "Eester daye is tyme of gladnesse"; 1420, 1440, 1480 "wold not graunte unto Estre next comyng"; 1447 Bokenham "On Esterne day next folwyng; 1517 A.D. Torkington - Pilgrimage - "He sawe...Criste rysen upon Estern Day"; 1593 Hooker Eccl. Pol. "keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Jews kept theirs";

Words can acquire new meanings with changing circumstances and be applied in new ways. When you turned on your computer, you used your “mouse”. Some argue the word pascha does not mean Easter in Greek but any modern Greek dictionary will tell you the way to say Easter is Pascha.

Most of us know how to say Merry Christmas in Spanish. Feliz Navidad. But millions of Spanish speaking people also say Happy Easter with the words Feliz Pascuas, the very same Greek word. This word also means Easter in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, Italian, Dutch, and Swedish.

Why would this word become Easter for the English speaking people? The word pascha is translated all other times in the KJB as passover, referring to the annual Jewish feast of offering a lamb to God to commemorate their deliverance out of slavery in Egypt.

Yet after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, this word is used only twice, once here and once in 1 Corinthians 5:7, where we are told, “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” Tyndale’s Bible actually says, “For Christ our Easter lamb is offered up for us.”

It makes no sense at all to believe that Tyndale, Martin Luther, Cranmer, Coverdale, Matthews, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible were referring to a pagan deity of the spring called Eastre or Ishtar when they called Christ the easterlamb.

It is likewise grammatically absurd to think Easter refers to a pagan deity in Acts 12:4 where it says, “intending after Easter to bring him forth unto the people”. Try substituting another name there and see how it sounds. Intending after Buddha to bring him forth, or intending after Krishna to bring him forth to the people.

Believers who say that Easter was a pagan holiday use the argument that Passover occurred before the days of unleavened bread, and so the Passover had already taken place. However in Luke 22:1 we see that the entire feast of 7 days was collectively called the Passover. “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” The term Passover may also refer to the entire week, including the 7 days of unleavened bread after the lamb was slain every year.

This is also confirmed in Ezekiel 45:21 - "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."

The KJB is actually the most accurate translation, in that it uses the word passover before the death and resurrection of Christ and then Easter the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts after His resurrection.

Some say the word Easter comes from the name of the goddess Ishtar or Eastre. The truth is found in any good dictionary that both Eastre and Easter come from the word East, but they are not related to each other in meaning. The sun rises in the east, to bring the light of a new day, and we are told concerning Christ in Malachi 4:2, “But unto you that fear my name shall the SUN of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.”

I also disagree with the idea that it was Herod who wanted to wait till after an alleged celebration of a pagan deity called Ishtar or Astarte. There is no historical evidence that Herod or anyone else in Jerusalem celebrated Ishtar at this time.

I think a more reasonable explanation lies in the fact that at the time of the Passover celebration, there were multitudes of both Jews and Gentile proselytes present in Jerusalem. Herod knew that if he brought forth Peter to be killed before the assembled masses, they would have to make public the accusations laid against him. Peter might well preach a sermon in his defense. Peter had already preached sermons with the result that 3000 were converted at Pentecost and another 5000 on a later day. If several thousands more believed the preaching of Peter about Christ and the resurrection, he might well have a riot on his hands. Perhaps Herod thought it better to wait till the multitudes had gone home after the Passover week, and then deal with Peter in a quieter fashion.

It is not that Herod himself was celebrating an alleged "Ishtar", or the Jewish Passover or what would come to be called the Christian Easter. Rather, it is the Holy Ghost speaking here in Acts 12:4 and telling us what this Passover celebration would come to signify for the believers in a risen Lord Jesus Christ. Christians today do not celebrate the Passover; we celebrate Easter which commemorates the great and central event of the glorious resurrection of the Lamb of God.

Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate OSTERN. The German word for Easter (Ostern) is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION." This is quoted from "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," translated in 1850 by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437.

The passover was a type of the true lamb of God who delivers His people out of the bondage of sin. Yet in the Jewish passover, there is no type of the resurrection, only the death of the lamb. The main theme of the preaching in Acts is the glorious resurrection of the lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

The Holy Ghost is speaking here in Acts 12, and He changed the significance of the word pascha to sometimes mean Easter. After all, there was no Easter before this great event. Easter is associated with the Jewish passover as a yearly holy day. Does not the same thing occur in Scripture with what was previously called the “passover meal”? The Holy Ghost, speaking through Paul, now refers to the "passover meal" as “The Lord’s Supper" in 1 Corinthians 11:20. It is no longer celebrated only once a year but can be celebrated as many times a year as we wish. See 1 Corinthians 11:26. But only once a year do we celebrate the resurrection, and in English and many other languages, this event is called Easter.

Some would argue that the early Christians didn’t celebrate Easter at this time, so it can not properly be called by this name but should be passover. The early Christians began very soon to commemorate the yearly event called Easter.

(more to come)

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 04:15 AM
Testimonies about the early Christians celebrating Easter

The history of Christian Easter is told about in the book, A History of The Christian Church. The first definite record of the celebration of Christian Easter is in connection with the visit of Polycarp (the bishop of Smyrna) to Anicetus (the bishop of Rome) in 154 or 155 in order to come to an agreement about the time of the observance of Easter. (Some say it was earlier, and there is dispute about the exact date of Polycarp's death) Polycarp represented the more ancient custom of observing Easter with a vigil, ending with the Lord’s Supper, through the night of the fourteenth of the month Nisan (month of the Jewish calendar), like the Jewish Passover, regardless of what day of the week this day might fall.

Anicetus represented the Roman custom that was also followed by some parts of the East to have the Easter feast always on Sunday. They did not come to an agreement, but continued on each with their own practice. Many articles found on the internet say that Polycarp claimed the apostle John celebrated the yearly event of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In any event, it seems the early church began very soon to celebrate a special day once of year to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and this day became known as Easter, which in the Greek language and many other foreign languages comes directly from this word Paska.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ac12_4.html

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory ©2000

Acts 12:4 - "after Easter"

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

The Greek word pascha is translated as Passover in the KJV with this one exception where it is translated as Easter. Therefore, some point to this passage as a translation error on the KJV's part. However, earlier English translations such as Tyndale's NT, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible also translated pascha as Easter in this verse, showing that the understanding here dealt with something other than the Jewish Passover. Also, the translation of pascha as Passover in Acts 12:4 was known to the king's translators since this is the reading of the Geneva Bible.

THE USE OF THE WORD PASCHA IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS DEALT WITH THE CELEBRATION OF EASTER, AND NOT JUST THE JEWISH PASSOVER. [1] Dr. G. W. H. Lampe has correctly stated that PASCHA CAME TO MEAN EASTER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. The ancient Christians did not keep the Jewish Passover. Instead they kept as holy a day to celebrate the resurrection of Christ near the time of both Passover and the pagan festival celebrating the goddess Ostara. Dr. Lampe lists several rules and observances by Christians in celebration of their pascha or Easter. Lampe also points to various Greek words such as paschazo and paschalua that came to mean celebrate Easter and Eastertide. [2] Likewise, Dr. Gerhard Kittel notes that PASCHA CAME TO BE CALLED EASTER IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE RESURRECTION within the primitive Church. [3]

It seems that pascha can mean more than the Jewish holy day of Passover. In fact, Greeks today who wish to send the greeting Happy Easter say, kalee pascha. Literally it means good Passover. However it has come to mean good or happy Easter.

[1] See Dr. Walter Bauer's, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), 633.

[2] G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 1048-1049.

[3] Gerhard Kittle, Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 901-904.

http://answers.org/issues/easter.html

Easter -Copyright 1999 by Gretchen Passantino

Easter is an English corruption from the proto-Germanic root word meaning "to rise." (We see this in the contemporary German cognate "öst-" and the English cognate "east," the direction from which the sun rises in the morning.) It refers not only to Christ rising from the dead, but also to his ascension to heaven and to our future rising with him at his Second Coming for final judgment. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT IT DERIVES FROM THE PAGAN Germanic goddess OESTAR OR from the Babylonian goddess ISHTAR- both fertility symbols signifying the coming of spring images of fertility, new life, and renewal.

The first Easter occurred on the first day of the week after the Passover Sabbath. The first day of the week became the Christian's "sabbath rest" (Heb. 4:1-11), the time of weekly Christian celebration of the resurrection. Annually, the Lord's Day immediately subsequent to the Jewish Passover was a day of special resurrection celebration.

Early Christians consulted local rabbis to determine the date of Passover each year, which would correspond to Holy Week. Passover was determined by the lunar configurations of the latitude in which the Jewish community resided. There was no Jewish authority at Jerusalem to determine a uniform date after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. In communities with no Jewish presence, Christians found it even more difficult to determine the date. Once the churches became unified in the fourth century, the date was more consistent until the West's adoption of the revised Gregorian calendar in the sixteenth century.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

We read in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiii): "A question of no small importance arose at that time [i.e. about A.D. 190]. The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch [epi tes tou soteriou Pascha heortes], contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour.... These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage. A letter of St. Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of 120 A.D.. Further, Irenaeus states that Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome circa 150 A.D. about this very question."

Easter celebrations

http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps100.shtml The earliest Christians celebrated the resurrection on the fourteenth of Nisan (our March-April), the date of the Jewish Passover. Jewish days were reckoned from evening to evening, so Jesus had celebrated His Last Supper the evening of the Passover and was crucified the day of the Passover. Early Christians celebrating the Passover worshiped Jesus as the Paschal Lamb and Redeemer.

Christians had obviously been celebrating Easter before 150 A.D. or so, since Christian leaders met to discuss its proper date and not the fact of its observance. God is now calling the passover Easter because of its new signifiance. He calleth those things which be not, as though they were.

Has He not done this before in His word? Genesis 14:14 tells us that Abraham pursued those who had taken Lot captive “unto Dan.” There was not even a tribe of Israel called Dan let alone a city named after them at this time. But God knew there would be.

In Genesis 21:14, 21, God calls the name of a place Beersheba before it is so named. In Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1, God speaks of Cyrus, my shepherd, his anointed “whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him”, as though he already existed, yet Cyrus would not be born till many years later.

Again in Romans 4:17, “As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” At the time Abraham had only one son, Ishmael. He was hardly a father of many nations, yet God says he had already made him a father of many nations.

There are two other examples in the scriptures of a religious holiday being established by God’s people to commemorate a great deliverance or event. In Esther 9:26-27 we see the feast of Purim established. “Wherefore they called these days Purim after the name of Pur. The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year.”

The other one is found in John 10:22 were we read, “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.” This feast of the dedication was instituted in 164 BC when after Antiochas Ephiphanes defiled the temple and Judas Maccaebeus rededicated it. This holiday is now called Hanukkah.

Words can adapt to new meanings and events can obtain new significance. What was once called by one name can now be called by another. Much has changed since the victory over death and the putting away of sin; the types have been fulfilled and their significance brought to light in the face of Jesus Christ.

I am well aware of how this original Christian celebration of Easter has been corrupted over the years with the bunnies, candies, and eggs. But these corruptions came about much later in the history of the church.

What things of Christ and of God have not been corrupted to some degree by the world and even by the church itself? Nevertheless, there remains the central kernel of divine truth in I Cor. 15:20, that “Christ is risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept”. The word Easter in Acts 12:4 is not an error, but rather a fuller revelation of the significance of the passover lamb, His sacrifice for our sins, and His resurrection from the dead.

Will Kinney

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked
Brother Matthew. You have just revealed the total uncertainty and confusion that exists today. "Some say this, and some say that, and some say something else" and you end up being a Bible agnostic. This is why the belief in an inspired and inerrant Bible is in a free fall.



Will,

Your argument doesn't stick. I, and millions of other Christians, are proof that just b/c we don't believe there is 1 perfect english translation that doesn't necessitate that we end up 'Bible agnostics'

In Christ,
matthew

Hi Matthew. It's not just that you don't believe there is one perfect English translation. The fact is you do not believe there IS ANY bible in ANY language that is the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God. That is my whole point. You, along with most other Christians, do not believe there exists such a thing as an infallible Bible. All you have are your personal preferences, and each of you differs from the others as to what are the God-inspired texts and which are not, and how each of you think they should be translated.

The condition today is "Every Man For Himself Bible Versions", and you have no Final Written Authority for "Thus saith the LORD".

That is my whole point. You gentlemen who are not King James Bible believers are just confirming it post after post after post.

Will K

I Love JesusChrist
Jun 12th 2008, 04:33 AM
It clearly states in the BIBLE, that you must accept JESUS CHRIST as your savior, other wise you will go to hell. It is very simple. Please just pray, and believe with all of your hearts. You must have faith, and devote your life to Christ, otherwise you could spend eternity in hell.

servantsheart
Jun 12th 2008, 04:53 AM
The wording and not God's Word may have small things not exactly right. But I don't believe the whole Bible is to be thrown out because of it. You can still read and study the word. God through the Holy Spirit will direct your path and let help you to read and understand it.
Anything that was hand inscribed and translated from the original Greek/Hebrew, in to English, is bound to have a mistake or two. But nothing that will keep me from reading and believing in it or keep me awake in worry or fear over it.

markedward
Jun 12th 2008, 05:10 AM
The KJB is actually the most accurate translation, in that it uses the word passover before the death and resurrection of Christ and then Easter the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts after His resurrection.Not only isn't this true, but you contradicted yourself. Your contradiction is that here you say it is the only time post-resurrection, as in post-Gospel, that the term pascha is used, while further up in your first post you directly state that it is used twice post-resurrection. And even including that, you're still off-base. The Greek word pascha makes three appearances in the chronological reading of the Bible. It is used first in Acts 12:4, second in 1 Corinthians 5:7 (both of which you caught), and third in Hebrews 11:28. In both of those other instances it is translated as "Passover," not "Easter."


It is not that Herod himself was celebrating an alleged "Ishtar", or the Jewish Passover or what would come to be called the Christian Easter. Rather, it is the Holy Ghost speaking here in Acts 12:4 and telling us what this Passover celebration would come to signify for the believers in a risen Lord Jesus Christ. Christians today do not celebrate the Passover; we celebrate Easter which commemorates the great and central event of the glorious resurrection of the Lamb of God.Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you then saying that Herod postponed Peter's trial until after a day that was celebrated by Christians? If that's what you're saying, I think that's less feasible than the Ishtar-celebration idea. While Herod likely would have postponed the trial for the Jewish festivity of Passover, it's incredibly unlikely that he would have done the same thing for the specific purpose of honoring a Christian holiday.

To me, this issue is just reaching. I honestly can't see it as anything other than desperately trying to cling to the idea that the KJV is perfect. First, the context of the passage is "the days of unleavened bread." Second, the word used is pascha, which in all other cases referred to the Passover. Third, there is Biblical proof that the word Passover (pascha) was used synonymously with the whole week of "the days of unleavened bread." Three simple points bring us to the simple and plain answer: the correct translation should be "Passover." Any other explanation to defend against this three-point fact requires paragraphs and paragraphs of over-the-top and unnecessarily complicated explanations. Which is easier to believe? In this case, Occam's Razor brings me to conclude that the simplest answer is the best one. The KJV is wrong in this case. It's a good translation, but it's not perfect.

With that, I'm going to stop going in circles with this issue.

I would like to bring up a few others, on this webpage: http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htm

This shows that the KJV went over numerous error-corrections in the years after it was printed. Many of them were errant words... again, the idea is; if it's supposed to be "perfect," why did they have to correct it so many times?

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 12:03 PM
brandplucked:

Are you an Anglican?

Gentile
Jun 12th 2008, 12:55 PM
First off the bible is just words. You wont find faith in a book. GOD is about spiritual human life within you. No human on this earth knows what bible would be wrong or right to read. I see alot of wasted energy arguing about something no one has the answers to.

fewarechosen
Jun 12th 2008, 01:01 PM
First off the bible is just words. You wont find faith in a book. GOD is about spiritual human life within you. No human on this earth knows what bible would be wrong or right to read. I see alot of wasted energy arguing about something no one has the answers to.

i am one who believes there can be "error" in the translation or passing down of scripture.

but to say its just words is very wrong i feel

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

and also for me --i have never found an error in scripture--- only a few mistranslations that are corrected when looking at greek or whatever

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 02:04 PM
Hi Mark. You, of couse, can stick to anything you want, but the NASB is surely not the complete, inspired and inerrant word of God. It has a lot of very serious errors and it keeps changing its text every few years.

The only inspired word of God we have is in the Greek and Hebrew. All translations lose something in the translation. Any language scholar will tell you that.

I have seen more power in the lives of those that use other translations than those that use the KJV. Now, my experience is limited and I know there are folks on here that have been powerfully moved by the KJV as it is a great version. There are also those that have been powerfully moved by the NIV and the NASB and many other versions.

theleast
Jun 12th 2008, 02:09 PM
The only inspired word of God we have is in the Greek and Hebrew. All translations lose something in the translation. Any language scholar will tell you that.

I have seen more power in the lives of those that use other translations than those that use the KJV. Now, my experience is limited and I know there are folks on here that have been powerfully moved by the KJV as it is a great version. There are also those that have been powerfully moved by the NIV and the NASB and many other versions.

Are you implying that the Spirit that interprets for us is diluted by translation?

I hope not.

ShirleyFord
Jun 12th 2008, 02:16 PM
Hi Will,

I appreaciate all of you historical research but I must go by what only the Bible itself says. It is true that we are not told anything in the Bible as to what "Easter" in Acts 12:4 means. But we don't find the Christians though in the Bible after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ coming together for a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ for which the Feast of Firstfruits pointed to. So I cannot agree that "Easter" referred to the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the Church in the Bible.

According to Lev. 23 the Feast of Firstfruits seems to have been the last day or seventh day of unleavened bread and was certainly given to the children of Israel by Moses to observe as well as all of the other yearly feasts. So it is incorrect to say that the Jews didn't celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course they didn't by the first century and the era of the NT but the Feast of Firstfruits was certainly one of the yearly feasts handed down to the children of Israel by Moses.

The Feast of Firstfruits was the time that the children of Israel was to pick the firstfruit of their first-ripe crops and the first-born of their cattle and bring it to the priests at the temple. The priests in turn took the 10% of the best of the firstfruits and gave them to the high priest.

The Feast of Penticost came 50 days after the Feast of Firstfruits.

When Paul instructed the Corinthian Church on the Lord's last supper, he didn't tell them that they were celebrating His resurrection when they likewise partook of it. But he said to them, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor 11:6) According to Paul, we are to remember the Lord's death as we partake of the communion table "until he comes."

Shirley

The Parson
Jun 12th 2008, 02:31 PM
I understand your points. Really, I do. But I'm not sure if you're getting my point. What critical doctrine do you know of that is not taught in the NIV?

To answer your question regarding Col 1:14, the NIV does include a footnote that says, "A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood". So, the phrase was not contained in the manuscripts they translated from, but they at least included that it is found in some manuscripts.

Also, the NIV does teach elsewhere that redemption comes through Christ's blood so it's not as if they made an effort to remove that doctrine from scripture.

7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. - Ephesians 1:7-8 (NIV)

12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. - Hebrews 9:12 (NIV)That is the point. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. If we remove a point of teaching in one point, aren't we weakining the precept in the other areas. Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:


Well If you don't like one one says, you can always jump to another one.Forgive me but wouldn't that be choosing the best tasting candy over the medicine drops?

TrustGzus
Jun 12th 2008, 02:34 PM
Greetings brandplucked,

I've read this entire thread. I think you've introduced too much for this thread to be productive for anyone.

In your three opening posts, I would caution you about making what is in logic called a category mistake, i.e an apple-and-oranges error.

The doctrine of inerrancy and translational accuracy may be closely related, but they are not identical. Evangelicals hold to inerrancy and so do KJB(V)-only advocates. The difference is where is that inerrancy located. For the extreme KJB(V)-onlyist, they believe it is found in the English translation of the KJV. For all other Evangelicals (and even some more moderate KJV-onlyists) it is found in what the authors of the Bible originally penned and in any copy to the degree that it perfectly transmits what the author penned.

The category mistake in your opening three posts happens in that you mix up quotes that are dealing with peoples views about inerrancy in general from quotes and polls that aren't specific enough.

For example, Harold Lindsell's quote from The Battle for the Bible isn't speaking about translations, it's speaking about a totally different approach to the Bible called neo-evangelicalism. People from that position reject inerrancy because they have a totally different perspective of what the Bible really is. It's not a question of which text to translate from. It's not an issue of should we use formal or functional equivalence. They don't believe ideas such as the Bible is historically accurate . . . a position that people on both sides of the KJV would stand against. Apples-and-oranges, brandplucked. This has nothing to do with translations.

Here's a chart from Norman Geisler illustrating the differences between an Evangelical position and the Neo-Evangelical position. I don't know how to duplicate a chart accurate. In the book, the columns are side by side. IN the post I will have alternate statements beginning with neo-evangelical and then evangelical and then neo-evangelical and then evangelical, etc. . . .

TWO VIEWS CONTRASTED


NEO-EVANGELICAL

EVANGELICAL

True in whole, but not all parts. (NE)


True in whole parts. (E)


True spiritually, but not always historically. (NE)

True spiritually and historically. (E)

True morally, but not always scientifically. (NE)

True morally and scientifically.(E)

True in intention, but not in all affirmation.(NE)

True in intention and all affirmations.(E)

Bible is infallible, not inerrant.(NE)

Bible is infallible and inerrant.(E)

Bible is God’s instrument of revelation.(NE)

Bible is intrinsically a revelation.(E)

Bible is God’s record of revelation.(NE)

Bible is God’s revelation.(E)

God speaks through the words of the Bible.(NE)

God speaks in the words of the Bible.(E)

Human language is inadequate to communicate God.(NE)

Human language is adequate but not exhaustive.(E)

Much of higher criticism may be accepted.(NE)

None of higher criticism is accepted.(E)

Faith is opposed to reason.(NE)

Faith is not opposed to reason.(E)

Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (147). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.


Many of the low views of the Bible and inerrancy in our nations and in denominations has to do with the impact of the enlightenment. Many people reject the miraculous from the beginning of the discussion. This dates back at least to Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza lived from 1632-1677. You can't blame his anti-supernaturalism on modern translations. In his day, the KJV was the modern translation. Did he reject supernaturalism because of the modern KJV? No, he didn't. Unfortunately, many KJV-onlyists would say that of Spinoza if he lived in the 20th century and ascribe his anti-supernaturalism to modern translations instead of to a more fundamental, philosophical basis.

So the statistics in the denominations and their rejection of inerrancy - is it because of influences like naturalism? Is it anti-supernatural philosophers like Benedict Spinoza and others? Is it because of modern translations? If it's because of modern translations, then how do you explain all the modern translation users that hold to inerrancy? The reality is that inerrancy isn't rejected because of a translational stance, but for other reasons.

So I'd advise you to tighten up the arguments in your presentation. Make one case about people rejecting inerrancy, but don't lump non-KJV-onlyists in that category. Acknowledge the fact that guys like Norman Geisler and James White and many formally educated and non-formally educated Evangelicals ascribe to inerrancy as described in the above chart. They believe it absolutely, 100% but simply think it is found at a different location and time than KJV-onlyists would locate it.

Then make a separate case about KJV v. modern translations where both sides agree that inerrancy is true but find it in different locations as in contrast with neo-evangelicals who don't believe inerrancy was ever true, even when the apostles and prophets were penning the book.

One key in debating is giving opponents the benefit of the doubt. If we spin a statement, let's grant the most positive spin we can on a comment unless a debate opponent makes it perfectly clear through follow up that they mean something worse. This is so much better than attributing the worst possible spin on a statement. It's also the more Christian thing to do. After all, charity thinketh no evil. Charity hopeth all things. So Christian charity would give opponents benefit of the doubt until and unless further conversation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt otherwise.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The Parson
Jun 12th 2008, 02:36 PM
Would ya'll let me know if the exert from a Parsons Corner article answers the Easter question or not...



Q. In answer to the previous question regarding the King James Version of the Bible you said that Easter was already a calendar event. What was Easter prior to the resurrection of Christ? If it was a pagan holiday why do we associate it with the resurrection of our precious Savior. Was it not also during the celebration of Passover? If so, why would Luke reference Christ's resurrection with a pagan holiday rather than a Jewish holy day? Thanks. [Kevin]

A. As I stated in the answer below Kevin, it was a date on the calender. Luke was a physician, a man of much knowledge & learning. He knew it was proper for him to point to a time that was known to all! No where do you see him giving honor to anyone but the Lord. The starting of Passover preceded the time of Easter therefore it wouldn't be as precise to point to that time on the calender! There is more than one day in the time of the Passover!

Everywhere in the scriptures do we find references to a certain thing to mark an event, for instance; Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. or Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

For that matter, take notice that there are no specific (Hebrew Numerical Calender) dates mentioned anywhere in the scriptures that I can find. Just references to sabbaths, reigns, and numbered days of the week!


Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Matthew 16:2: And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

[Timothy]

TrustGzus
Jun 12th 2008, 02:45 PM
Hey Tim,
That is the point. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. If we remove a point of teaching in one point, aren't we weakining the precept in the other areas. Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: I think that is the point. I think you, member John146, and I agree about the shedding of blood.

Our member, John146, was pointing out that while KJV-only advocates like to point out Colossians 1:14, member John146 pointed out two more places where the blood of Jesus is clearly mentioned. So the NIV teaches clearly the shedding of Jesus blood. The KJV-only position is dependent on Colossians 1:14 of taking a single verse out of context and making a sweeping generalization about the NIV that isn't true of the NIV.

I'll go one more than member John146 went. He quote Ephesians 1 and Hebrews 9 to show the NIV teaches Jesus' shed blood. We don't even have to leave Colossians 1. We simply must read more of the context (emphasis mine) . . .

9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. 10 And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified youb (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1) to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption,c (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn2) the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
b (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1)Some manuscripts us

c (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref2)A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Col 1:9-20). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.


Besides the NIV including the blood a mere six verses later, anyone can see from the footnotes I included, the translators didn't hide anything about verse 14. They acknowledge that some late manuscripts have it. They simply didn't tell which nine manuscripts include it and the dates of those nine manuscripts.

I've got a full day. So any replies made to my two posts today might not get a comment back from me for a while.

Grace & peace to you, Tim.

Joe

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 02:53 PM
Would ya'll let me know if the exert from a Parsons Corner article answers the Easter question or not...

There is no logical explaination of how a Jew in Palestine (Luke) would have familiarity with the peculiar pagan practices of the denizens of what was to become the British Islands. The term "easter" derives not just from "paganism" as paganism is a rather broad and nondescript term. It is derived from the paganism of the British Islands. The word "Easter" is ONLY used by English speakers as a result. Christians of other languages refer to Easter as "Pascha" or Passover. Therefore, the word's usage in the Authorized Bible is an anachronism of the English translators and is not something found in the Greek.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 02:57 PM
The Authorized Bible was commissioned by the Anglican Church and for the Anglican church and translated by the Anglican CHurch. I find it humourous and a bit ironic that the people who are so wedded to it are not Anglican but, in point of fact, reject the Anglican Church. I do not understand why someone would reject the teachings that flow from the Anglican Church yet accept the Bible the Anglican Church produces. One would think that, logically, if the Anglican Church is not trustworthy with teachings, it certainly would not be trustworthy to translate the Bible accurately.

The Parson
Jun 12th 2008, 03:39 PM
There is no logical explaination of how a Jew in Palestine (Luke) would have familiarity with the peculiar pagan practices of the denizens of what was to become the British Islands. The term "easter" derives not just from "paganism" as paganism is a rather broad and nondescript term. It is derived from the paganism of the British Islands. The word "Easter" is ONLY used by English speakers as a result. Christians of other languages refer to Easter as "Pascha" or Passover. Therefore, the word's usage in the Authorized Bible is an anachronism of the English translators and is not something found in the Greek.Luke wasn't a Jew seamus. Neither was he an Apostle. He was a Gentile.

Buck shot
Jun 12th 2008, 03:45 PM
The Authorized Bible was commissioned by the Anglican Church and for the Anglican church and translated by the Anglican CHurch. I find it humourous and a bit ironic that the people who are so wedded to it are not Anglican but, in point of fact, reject the Anglican Church. I do not understand why someone would reject the teachings that flow from the Anglican Church yet accept the Bible the Anglican Church produces. One would think that, logically, if the Anglican Church is not trustworthy with teachings, it certainly would not be trustworthy to translate the Bible accurately.

I cound not help myself but to join. The Anglican Church did not translate the KJV. Men that had devoted their lives to learning and teaching translated the KJV. We should never judge what a person does or thinks by what the church they are affiliated with as a whole believes.

The Parson
Jun 12th 2008, 03:57 PM
Hey Tim,I think that is the point. I think you, member John146, and I agree about the shedding of blood.

Our member, John146, was pointing out that while KJV-only advocates like to point out Colossians 1:14, member John146 pointed out two more places where the blood of Jesus is clearly mentioned. So the NIV teaches clearly the shedding of Jesus blood. The KJV-only position is dependent on Colossians 1:14 of taking a single verse out of context and making a sweeping generalization about the NIV that isn't true of the NIV.

I'll go one more than member John146 went. He quote Ephesians 1 and Hebrews 9 to show the NIV teaches Jesus' shed blood. We don't even have to leave Colossians 1. We simply must read more of the context (emphasis mine) . . . Besides the NIV including the blood a mere six verses later, anyone can see from the footnotes I included, the translators didn't hide anything about verse 14. They acknowledge that some late manuscripts have it. They simply didn't tell which nine manuscripts include it and the dates of those nine manuscripts.

I've got a full day. So any replies made to my two posts today might not get a comment back from me for a while.

Grace & peace to you, Tim.

JoeI would hope to address the manuscript issues but this thread probably isn't the place Joe. And as for the NIV addressing the blood in a rather different way, it still is a large issue with me because personally I believe it lessens the precept all together. Thank you for your thoughtful post by the way.

Tim

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 03:57 PM
Luke wasn't a Jew seamus. Neither was he an Apostle. He was a Gentile.

Ah, I stand corrected. I wrote that a bit in haste. I never said he was an Apostle, but I forgot that he was Greek not Jewish. My mistake. However, my point remains undiminished. There is no logical reason why a Greek in Palestine would have any knowledge of English Paganism.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 04:01 PM
I cound not help myself but to join. The Anglican Church did not translate the KJV. Men that had devoted their lives to learning and teaching translated the KJV. We should never judge what a person does or thinks by what the church they are affiliated with as a whole believes.


Respectfully, you are not correct. The Anglicn Church commissioned the translation for use in the Anglican Church and EVERY translator - all 47 of them - were Anglicans. It was translated in order to keep Puritan dissidents from putting forth their own "official" translation(s) in order to keep uniformity within the Anglican Church. It is THE Anglican Bible for the Anglican Church.

Buck shot
Jun 12th 2008, 04:16 PM
Respectfully, you are not correct. The Anglicn Church commissioned the translation for use in the Anglican Church and EVERY translator - all 47 of them - were Anglicans. It was translated in order to keep Puritan dissidents from putting forth their own "official" translation(s) in order to keep uniformity within the Anglican Church. It is THE Anglican Bible for the Anglican Church.

Seamus, I am a Baptist preacher who is affiliated with several churches. Does this mean that everything I do is Baptist?

You might want to discuss this with some of the folks at the Methodist Church where I preach once a month. :P

The men who translated the KJV could have went to any church but I believe they belonged to the "One Church, the bride of Christ".

The folks that footed the bill for these men to set aside their lives to translate the KJV could have went to any church, the main thing is that our Father used them to further His work.

The Parson
Jun 12th 2008, 04:18 PM
Ah, I stand corrected. I wrote that a bit in haste. I never said he was an Apostle, but I forgot that he was Greek not Jewish. My mistake. However, my point remains undiminished. There is no logical reason why a Greek in Palestine would have any knowledge of English Paganism.I see the point you are wanting to make but actually, Easter is the Brittanic term I beleive for the feast of fertility which was quinticentually Roman and Greek. Could be wrong but I believe it was.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 04:25 PM
I see the point you are wanting to make but actually, Easter is the Brittanic term I beleive for the feast of fertility which was quinticentually Roman and Greek. Could be wrong but I believe it was.

I am sure the pagan gods and festivals for them were all over the Roman Empire. Still, your mention that it was a "Brittanic" term is essentially my point. There is no reason why a Greek in Palestine would be familiar with Brittanic terms. That is all I am trying to say.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 04:30 PM
Seamus, I am a Baptist preacher who is affiliated with several churches. Does this mean that everything I do is Baptist?

You might want to discuss this with some of the folks at the Methodist Church where I preach once a month. :P

The men who translated the KJV could have went to any church but I believe they belonged to the "One Church, the bride of Christ".

The folks that footed the bill for these men to set aside their lives to translate the KJV could have went to any church, the main thing is that our Father used them to further His work.

I see what you are saying and in spirit I agree. However I do not think your post above really appreciates the denomination climate and environment of 17th Century England. At that time, although the Elizabethian Settlement went a long way, there was still a highly charged situation in England along denominational lines, specifically the Anglicans, the Romans, Presbyterians, and the dissenters/nonconformists and/or Puritans. Denominational identity was extremely prnounced and there was essentially no mixture or cross fertilization between them at this time in history. Indeed, denomination became part and parcel with one's identity. By the grace of God these lines have soften a lot so that you, a Baptist, can preach in a Methodist Church. Unfortunately, there was a time when that could not happen and, indeed, one of you would burn at the stake if the other had its way. So, an Anglican in 1611 was an *Anglican* and worked for the Anglican CHurch for the Anglican cause. Like I said, one of the main reasons the Authorized Bible was produced was simply to keep the Puritains from developing their own translation in order to keep them at bay.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 05:20 PM
[quote=The Parson;1670113]

Forgive me but wouldn't that be choosing the best tasting candy over the medicine drops?

My point exactly.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 05:37 PM
[quote]

My point exactly.

People do that regardless of what version they use.

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 06:09 PM
Not only isn't this true, but you contradicted yourself. Your contradiction is that here you say it is the only time post-resurrection, as in post-Gospel, that the term pascha is used, while further up in your first post you directly state that it is used twice post-resurrection. And even including that, you're still off-base. The Greek word pascha makes three appearances in the chronological reading of the Bible. It is used first in Acts 12:4, second in 1 Corinthians 5:7 (both of which you caught), and third in Hebrews 11:28. In both of those other instances it is translated as "Passover," not "Easter."

Hi Mark. The only time the word paska is used in the history time-line of being a post-resurrection reference is in Acts 12:4. The ones in Hebrews and 1 Cor. refer to pre-resurrection usage. You missed the point.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you then saying that Herod postponed Peter's trial until after a day that was celebrated by Christians? If that's what you're saying, I think that's less feasible than the Ishtar-celebration idea. While Herod likely would have postponed the trial for the Jewish festivity of Passover, it's incredibly unlikely that he would have done the same thing for the specific purpose of honoring a Christian holiday.

This would be a good point if it were a case of the Christians referring to the paska as Easter, but it is not Christians or even Herod referring to Easter, but the Holy Ghost calls it this because God knew this is what the festivity would eventually be called. We are dealing with the only time a post resurrection reference is made to the word paska.


To me, this issue is just reaching. I honestly can't see it as anything other than desperately trying to cling to the idea that the KJV is perfect. First, the context of the passage is "the days of unleavened bread." Second, the word used is pascha, which in all other cases referred to the Passover.

Keep in mind that the King James Bible was not the first nor the last nor was English the only version to translate the word as Easter in this specific passage. If the KJB translators 28 times referred to the Passover, and only this one time (post resurrection) referred to it as Easter, were they blind dummies who just goofed, or were they guided by God Almighty who used these men to give us the greatest Book ever published? I choose the later view. You can believe whatever you want, but you are the one who ends up with NO inspired and infallible Bible.


Third, there is Biblical proof that the word Passover (pascha) was used synonymously with the whole week of "the days of unleavened bread."

You are right on this one point and I also pointed this out in the article.

God bless,

Will K

groovemongrel
Jun 12th 2008, 06:12 PM
I find it much easier to live knowing the bible is the word of God instead of questioning it. I believe everything that is written in the bible and that's that. Some things I can't explain and don't care to try. Its comforting knowing God is the only one who knows all.

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 06:15 PM
With that, I'm going to stop going in circles with this issue.

I would like to bring up a few others, on this webpage: http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htm

This shows that the KJV went over numerous error-corrections in the years after it was printed. Many of them were errant words... again, the idea is; if it's supposed to be "perfect," why did they have to correct it so many times?

Hi Mark. I looked at the site you gave here and have seen it before. But I did read through it. This is nothing more that the Printing Error Ploy. It is the last shallow foxhole the Whateverists have dug in an attempt to prove just one little error in the Book.

Here is my written response to the Printing Errors. I wrote this myself and also reference another man's work (Dr. Reagan) regarding this issue.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html

God bless,

Will K

DeadtoSin
Jun 12th 2008, 06:23 PM
My point exactly.
Luckily, I do not suffer from a desire to ignore parts of the Bible by going to a different version. That seems like a cop out response to my original message.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 06:34 PM
Hi Mark. The only time the word paska is used in the history time-line of being a post-resurrection reference is in Acts 12:4. The ones in Hebrews and 1 Cor. refer to pre-resurrection usage. You missed the point.




This would be a good point if it were a case of the Christians referring to the paska as Easter, but it is not Christians or even Herod referring to Easter, but the Holy Ghost calls it this because God knew this is what the festivity would eventually be called. We are dealing with the only time a post resurrection reference is made to the word paska.



Keep in mind that the King James Bible was not the first nor the last nor was English the only version to translate the word as Easter in this specific passage. If the KJB translators 28 times referred to the Passover, and only this one time (post resurrection) referred to it as Easter, were they blind dummies who just goofed, or were they guided by God Almighty who used these men to give us the greatest Book ever published? I choose the later view. You can believe whatever you want, but you are the one who ends up with NO inspired and infallible Bible.



You are right on this one point and I also pointed this out in the article.

God bless,

Will K

As I said above, Easter is a word unique to the British Islands. There is no logical reason why a Greek in Palestine would know this word.

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 06:37 PM
The only inspired word of God we have is in the Greek and Hebrew. All translations lose something in the translation. Any language scholar will tell you that.


Hi Mark. Are you aware of the fact that there is no "the" Greek and "the" Hebrew? The question then would be WHICH Greek and which Hebrew readings? By the way, why does your NASB so often reject the Hebrew readings? And it keeps on changing which Greek texts it wants to follow as well. You did read the link I posted about your ever-changing NASB, right?

As for your statement:"All translations lose something in the translation. Any language scholar will tell you that.", apparently these scholars have not read the Bible much. There are many examples from the Bible itself of where a translation can be the inspired words of God. Whom am I to believe, your scholars or the Bible?

I wrote this article showing how a Translation can be the Inspired Words of God.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html


By the way, you never got around to telling us if your NASB correct when it teaches that God was deceived by men in Psalm 78:36?

Will K

Rebelnote
Jun 12th 2008, 06:41 PM
As I said above, Easter is a word unique to the British Islands.

But Passover was not an unknown word. they should have translated through a Jewish cultural lense, rather than a westernized lense.

sorry, I haven't really been involved with this topic, nor am I that much of an expert, but I have researched enough to come to an opinion that the English translations did not take Jewish culture into acount of a variety of subjects.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 06:41 PM
Hi Mark. Are you aware of the fact that there is no "the" Greek and "the" Hebrew? The question then would be WHICH Greek and which Hebrew readings? By the way, why does your NASB so often reject the Hebrew readings? And it keeps on changing which Greek texts it wants to follow as well. You did read the link I posted about your ever-changing NASB, right?

As for your statement:"All translations lose something in the translation. Any language scholar will tell you that.", apparently these scholars have not read the Bible much. There are many examples from the Bible itself of where a translation can be the inspired words of God. Whom am I to believe, your scholars or the Bible?

I wrote this article showing how a Translation can be the Inspired Words of God.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html


By the way, you never got around to telling us if your NASB correct when it teaches that God was deceived by men in Psalm 78:36?

Will K

Wha OBJECTIVE reason do you have for chosing one manuscript over others?

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 06:52 PM
Greetings brandplucked,



The doctrine of inerrancy and translational accuracy may be closely related, but they are not identical. Evangelicals hold to inerrancy and so do KJB(V)-only advocates. The difference is where is that inerrancy located. For the extreme KJB(V)-onlyist, they believe it is found in the English translation of the KJV. For all other Evangelicals (and even some more moderate KJV-onlyists) it is found in what the authors of the Bible originally penned and in any copy to the degree that it perfectly transmits what the author penned.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Hi Joe. Yes, this is the big difference. The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book, and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Final Written Authority.

Your side of things has an imaginary 'bible' that no one has ever seen and that does not exist today. You refer to the non-existent originals as being your standard, and then to copies that you do not identify and cannot in the least prove to match something you have never seen and does not exist. In my view, professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a good basis for faith.

Why would God go through the process of inspiring His words, then promise to preserve them, also telling us that heaven and earth shall pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken, and then drop the ball and not do what He promised to do?

Simple question. Do you have an inspired, complete and 100% true Bible? Yes or No, or I dunno? If you do, then where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we are using now?

This is my whole point. The Whateverist has no Infallible Bible in any language (including the ever elusive "the" Greek and Hebrew) and doesn't believe one exists.

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 06:55 PM
As I said above, Easter is a word unique to the British Islands. There is no logical reason why a Greek in Palestine would know this word.


Hi seamus. And God has caused that the true Bible come from England and the Greek word paska means Easter today throughout the Greek speaking church. That is precisely what this Greek word means today. Gee, I wonder why;)

God bless,

Will K

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 06:56 PM
Hi Joe. Yes, this is the big difference. The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book, and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Final Written Authority.

Your side of things has an imaginary 'bible' that no one has ever seen and that does not exist today. You refer to the non-existent originals as being your standard, and then to copies that you do not identify and cannot in the least prove to match something you have never seen and does not exist. In my view, professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a good basis for faith.

Why would God go through the process of inspiring His words, then promise to preserve them, also telling us that heaven and earth shall pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken, and then drop the ball and not do what He promised to do?

Simple question. Do you have an inspired, complete and 100% true Bible? Yes or No, or I dunno? If you do, then where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we are using now?

This is my whole point. The Whateverist has no Infallible Bible in any language (including the ever elusive "the" Greek and Hebrew) and doesn't believe one exists.

Will K


If you have no originals to compare the KJV to, then how do you have any idea if it compares to them?

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 06:59 PM
Hi seamus. And God has caused that the true Bible come from England and the Greek word paska means Easter today throughout the Greek speaking church. That is precisely what this Greek word means today. Gee, I wonder why;)

God bless,

Will K

Actually this is incorrect. The ONLY language that uses the word Easter is the English language. The Feast of the Resurrection is known as Pascha in virtually every other Christian language - including the Greek Church.

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 07:00 PM
Wha OBJECTIVE reason do you have for chosing one manuscript over others?

Hi seamus. There is no possible way to answer this question either for your Whateverist side or for my KJB only side. There is no possible way that any man alone (unguided by the sovereign Spirit of God Himself) could be 'objective' or neutral in this issue.

Here is how I would address your thought provoking question.

Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.


All of grace,

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 07:02 PM
Actually this is incorrect. The ONLY language that uses the word Easter is the English language. The Feast of the Resurrection is known as Pascha in virtually every other Christian language - including the Greek Church.

Not true. Maybe you didn't read the article very closely. Luther's German bible 1545 translated the word as Easter - Ostern. The German word for Passover is an entirely different word.

God bless,

Will K

The Parson
Jun 12th 2008, 07:02 PM
Wha OBJECTIVE reason do you have for chosing one manuscript over others?Manuscripts? If you don't mind my interjecting, here is a quote from Dr. Frank Logsdon who was a contributer to the NASB...


At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words.
__________________________________________________ _____

I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, "Dewey, I don't want to add to your problems," (he had lost his wife some three years before; I was there for the funeral; also a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other one; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy- four years of age) "but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The only thing I can do--and dear Brother, I haven't a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere," (he wasn't schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."
__________________________________________________ _____

There are two copies of those Bibles in existence, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. And where are they? They are in the custodial care of Rome. Now almost all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, come through that stream. And that necessitates this comment: There is the false and the true streams of manuscripts. And either our manuscripts come through the false stream, or they come through the approved stream of manuscripts.

Quote source: Bible Version Comparisions by Tim Davis Sr.

matthew94
Jun 12th 2008, 07:05 PM
Hi Joe. Yes, this is the big difference. The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book, and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Final Written Authority.

First, it is wrong for you to imply, yet again, that non-KJV-onlyists don't think God kept His promises. God did promise to preserve His words. He didn't say how He would do that.

Second, it is quite an overstatement, in my opinion, to say that 'all the evidence points to the KJB as being the Final Written Authority.' Why did you utilize CAPS there, by the way?


Your side of things has an imaginary 'bible' that no one has ever seen and that does not exist today. You refer to the non-existent originals as being your standard, and then to copies that you do not identify and cannot in the least prove to match something you have never seen and does not exist. In my view, professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a good basis for faith.

What? We know that it DID exist just like you know it did exist. It's not like non-KJV-onlyists are believing in something that probably never existed. We are believing in something that CERTAINLY did exist.

It is unwarrented, in my opinion, to describe the non-kjv-onlyists 'bible' as 'imaginary.' This type of rhetoric won't help your cause.


Why would God go through the process of inspiring His words, then promise to preserve them, also telling us that heaven and earth shall pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken, and then drop the ball and not do what He promised to do?

It is inaccurate, unwarrented, and uncharitable for you to imply that non-KJV-onlyists believe that God dropped the ball and didn't keep His promise. Once again, you're arguing that the only way for God to preserve His word is through 1 perfect english translation. Doesn't add up.


Simple question. Do you have an inspired, complete and 100% true Bible? Yes or No, or I dunno? If you do, then where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we are using now?

Once again, you're assuming that God's preserved word must be found in 1 particular perfect translation. Doesn't add up.


This is my whole point. The Whateverist has no Infallible Bible in any language (including the ever elusive "the" Greek and Hebrew) and doesn't believe one exists.

It is uncharitable and unwarrented for you to call the non-KJV-onlyist a 'whateverist'. You're not helping your cause by having such an attitude.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 07:10 PM
Manuscripts? If you don't mind my interjecting, here is a quote from Dr. Frank Logsdon who was a contributer to the NASB...

I am not sure of your point here.

TrustGzus
Jun 12th 2008, 07:15 PM
I would hope to address the manuscript issues but this thread probably isn't the place Joe. And as for the NIV addressing the blood in a rather different way, it still is a large issue with me because personally I believe it lessens the precept all together. Thank you for your thoughtful post by the way.

TimHey Tim,

The manuscripts were brought into this thread by brandplucked a long time ago in post #4 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1668054&postcount=4) when brandplucked claimed . . .
The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.It's impossible to have a discussion in which someone claims the superiority of the KJV without some discussion of the manuscripts. In this case, brandplucked, the KJVO advocate, introduced the subject.

You state that the NIV addressing the blood in a different way lessens the precept. Tim, how does it do this?

If we compare all the New Testament epistles, Romans through Jude, we find that the NIV uses the word blood 40 times. How many times does the KJV use the word? The answer is 41. So you and I know where that one is at.

You and I also know that in that one instance there are only nine manuscripts that agree with the KJV and that all of those are late manuscripts, i.e. after Nicea and after Chalcedon.

You and I also know from our many discussions on this that we've had together that if someone reads on to Colossians 1:20 that the blood is clearly mentioned.

How does 41 times in the KJV versus 40 times in all other translations lessen the precept? What does the 41st time add?

Grace & peace to you, Tim.

Joe

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 07:16 PM
Manuscripts? If you don't mind my interjecting, here is a quote from Dr. Frank Logsdon who was a contributer to the NASB...

Forgive my ignorance my friend. I have done little to no study of manuscripts or such things. I feel like the blind man that Jesus healed. Through reading the NASB, God has so opened my eyes to many spiritual truths that I say "This I know, though I was blind, now I see. This man must be from God." The great miracles God has done in my life through the reading of the NASB leave me with the same words, this book must be from God for he has opened my eyes with it!

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 07:18 PM
Hi all. It was brought to my attention that my use of the word agnostic could lend itself to a misinterpretation. Here is the previous post to be followed by my clarification. Thanks.







Brother Matthew. You have just revealed the total uncertainty and confusion that exists today. "Some say this, and some say that, and some say something else" and you end up being a Bible agnostic. This is why the belief in an inspired and inerrant Bible is in a free fall.

God said it would happen. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of God." Amos 8:8

How can we have a famine in the midst of 200 plus English bible versions? Easy, people don't believe any of them are the infallible words of God, people read them less and less, and the true Bible is mocked and rejected.

Will K

Hi brother. Thanks for writing. As for 'agnosticism', I wasn't calling others 'agnostics' but I referred to "Biblical agnostics", meaning that they do not know what the Bible is or isn't. It was in the context of "some say this, and others say that, and some say something else" regarding what forms the Scriptures.

I very definitely believe that most who read the modern versions are true Christians. I am not impugning their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but their faith in an infallible Bible.


As for other topic, I have been involved in others but I am passionate about the Bible version issue. I think it is the most important issue facing the church today - Final Authority.

I am a high school Spanish teacher by profession, so during the school year I am quite busy with this. However, we are now on Summer break and I have more free time than usual.

I would probably be labeled as a fundamental, Bible believing Baptist more than anything else.

God bless,

Will K

matthew94
Jun 12th 2008, 07:31 PM
Hi all. It was brought to my attention that my use of the word agnostic could lend itself to a misinterpretation. Here is the previous post to be followed by my clarification. Thanks.

I didn't think you were calling me, or anyone else, an 'agnostic'
I knew you were "meaning that they do not know what the Bible is or isn't"
I find this in-appropriate.

The KJV-only position is a legitimate position to take
But to say that those who disagree with you 'do not know what the bible is or is not' is inappropriate in my opinion. Your clarification only reveals that I was right in my evaluation of what you said in the first place.

You have since added the word 'whateverist' to your repetoire.
This is also, in my opinion, inappropriate.
You would be much better served to express your opinions without claiming that non-KJV-onlyists are 'bible-agnostics' and 'whateverists'

As passionate as you feel about the KJV-only position, I feel just as passionate AGAINST the extreme form of the KJV-onlyist position.

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Joe. Yes, this is the big difference. The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book, and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Final Written Authority.



First, it is wrong for you to imply, yet again, that non-KJV-onlyists don't think God kept His promises. God did promise to preserve His words. He didn't say how He would do that.

Hi Matthew. Let me ask you this. How do you think God preserved His words and what verses would you use to support this view?



Quote:
Your side of things has an imaginary 'bible' that no one has ever seen and that does not exist today. You refer to the non-existent originals as being your standard, and then to copies that you do not identify and cannot in the least prove to match something you have never seen and does not exist. In my view, professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a good basis for faith.


What? We know that it DID exist just like you know it did exist. It's not like non-KJV-onlyists are believing in something that probably never existed. We are believing in something that CERTAINLY did exist.

It is unwarrented, in my opinion, to describe the non-kjv-onlyists 'bible' as 'imaginary.' This type of rhetoric won't help your cause.

Matthew, the KJB believer not only believes that the originals once existed but we also believe God has been faithful to give us a real Book that is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the Lord.

You yourself confess that you believe they DID exist, but you do not say that they DO exist now. Thus you have an imaginary bible that does not exist now. If I am wrong about what you believe then you can clear the whole thing up for us by telling us where we can get a copy of "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16) that exists now so we can compare it to whatever we are presently reading as The Bible to see what the differences are.

Otherwise you are believing in something you know does not exist now and is thus imaginary.

Thanks,

Will K

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 07:55 PM
You yourself confess that you believe they DID exist, but you do not say that they DO exist now. Thus you have an imaginary bible that does not exist now. If I am wrong about what you believe then you can clear the whole thing up for us by telling us where we can get a copy of "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16) that exists now so we can compare it to whatever we are presently reading as The Bible to see what the differences are.

Otherwise you are believing in something you know does not exist now and is thus imaginary.

Thanks,

Will K

If that be the case, then I have seen far more power in the lives of those that use the "imaginary" bibles than I have in those that use the KJV. Now, my experience is very small and limited. But it is telling.

The other versions have the power of God on them to change people's lives.

RoadWarrior
Jun 12th 2008, 07:57 PM
....

I am a high school Spanish teacher by profession, so during the school year I am quite busy with this. However, we are now on Summer break and I have more free time than usual.

I would probably be labeled as a fundamental, Bible believing Baptist more than anything else.

God bless,

Will K

Hi Will,

I have been reading this thread, and trying to determine where I wanted to step in. You gave me the opening here.

If you believe (as I think you are saying) that the KJV is the only legitimate translation of the Bible (even compared to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the scriptures);

then what is your opinion of the translations into many other languages throughout the world, being made in an effort to give the Bible to people in their own language?

You teach Spanish - do you require that all Spanish-speaking peoples learn English so that they can read the Bible in the KJV?

Do you think it is impossible for a person to believe in God and be a "Bible-believer" if the preferred version is something other than KJV?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

TrustGzus
Jun 12th 2008, 08:03 PM
Hi Joe. Yes, this is the big difference. The King James Bible believer actually believes God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a real and tangible Book, and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that Final Written Authority.

Your side of things has an imaginary 'bible' that no one has ever seen and that does not exist today. You refer to the non-existent originals as being your standard, and then to copies that you do not identify and cannot in the least prove to match something you have never seen and does not exist. In my view, professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a good basis for faith.

Why would God go through the process of inspiring His words, then promise to preserve them, also telling us that heaven and earth shall pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken, and then drop the ball and not do what He promised to do?

Simple question. Do you have an inspired, complete and 100% true Bible? Yes or No, or I dunno? If you do, then where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we are using now?

This is my whole point. The Whateverist has no Infallible Bible in any language (including the ever elusive "the" Greek and Hebrew) and doesn't believe one exists.

Will KHey Will,

I'd love to discuss this with you as I see Matthew tried to deal with this post. However, as I said in my first post in this thread, you're placing way too much on the plate at one time. In this reply alone we can discuss:


Psalm 12 and your interpretation of it (your paragraph 1 in the above quote)
Can we know what the original manuscripts said through the process of lower textual criticism? (paragraph 2)
Matthew 5 and your interpretation of it (paragraph 3)
1) How reliable/faithful is the KJV or any other translation (English or other language) to what was originally written down and 2) how can we know any of these is reliable/faithful? (paragraph 4)

I would glad to discuss any of this. However, each of these could, and should, be it's own thread. You've introduced these and dozens of other ideas. So many ideas that this thread is adding a whole page of posts every few hours. A person who is gone for a day or two can have several pages to read that can go in two dozen different directions.

So, please convince me. However, here's my suggestion. Let's throw one idea on the table at a time. Let's make a thread for each idea. Then we can make real progress. Then this topic can be beneficial to the members of bibleforums.org as people can see one issue at a time dealt with thoroughly rather than dozens dealt with superficially and simply taking up memory on the internet and convincing neither side.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Gulah Papyrus
Jun 12th 2008, 08:05 PM
To the OP, not trying to stump you, I'm just curious. How come in Psalm 8:2 it reads -

out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength -

...but when Jesus quotes the verse in Matthew 21:16 it reads -

Yea:have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise -

:hmm:

bump, bump, bump

Who is wrong? The psalmlst, the KJV, or Jesus?

If Jesus was asking them if they had read, 'in the KJV', then no, they would not have.

matthew94
Jun 12th 2008, 08:14 PM
Hi Matthew. Let me ask you this....

Hey Will,

I'd rather not respond to your questions. Not because I don't think they are interesting. And not because I don't have responses, but because I think it is wise for me not to dialogue on this topic with someone using terms like you have used in this thread. Just my posting parameters.

God bless,
matthew

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 08:34 PM
bump, bump, bump

Who is wrong? The psalmlst, the KJV, or Jesus?

If Jesus was asking them if they had read, 'in the KJV', then no, they would not have.

Jesus, was, of course, quoting the Septuagint which is, of course, the ONE TRUE BIBLE OF ALL TIME BAR NONE AD INFINITUM. :rofl::lol:;):D

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 09:00 PM
[quote=tgallison;1670364]

People do that regardless of what version they use.

But thats the point. If there was only one version, there wouldn't be anything to pick and choose.

To me its Satan's method of operation. Present something pleasant to the eyes. Isn't that the approach of some modern translations. A lot easier to understand. The words to the eyes are a lot more pleasant. And then to make one wise. Oh our translation is an update, we have learned a lot that they didn't understand, we are much wiser than they were. The taste is sweet and hurts nothing for the present. But how about down the road.

In Genesis it brought death. Here it will bring unbelief. Not for the short haul, for it is sweet.

A little leaven leaveneth the who lump.

Consider a new convert. He goes to the Bible book store and asks for a Bible. The salesperson says which one. He says you know the Bible. The salesperson says, well you know there are many different Bibles. And he says well you know the true Bible. The salesperson says, well I don't know which one is the true Bible, they are all a little bit different. It depends on what you like. We have a Bible for almost every one.

It seems like every Tom, Dick, and Harry has their own Bible translation, and it is only going to get worse.

If I was a new convert, I would begin right off the bat to have doubts about what I could trust as far as the Word of God is concerned. But then I can see Satan with a big smile on his face saying, ye shall not surely die.

Be careful, the fruit may taste sweet and be pleasing to the eye, but what is the end of it?

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 09:09 PM
[quote=Brother Mark;1670392]

But thats the point. If there was only one version, there wouldn't be anything to pick and choose.

Sure there is. People favor one verse over another many times. It's not the versions fault for what people do.


To me its Satan's method of operation. Present something pleasant to the eyes. Isn't that the approach of some modern translations. A lot easier to understand. The words to the eyes are a lot more pleasant. And then to make one wise. Oh our translation is an update, we have learned a lot that they didn't understand, we are much wiser than they were. The taste is sweet and hurts nothing for the present. But how about down the road.

I think it God's approach to give the new versions. For certainly, God taught me way more through the new version than he did the older one. As I said before, I have met many more people with real power in their lives that use a modern translation than use the KJV and I have been around both groups extensively. However, I do know people that use each that walk in power.


In Genesis it brought death. Here it will bring unbelief. Not for the short haul, for it is sweet.

I think that a broad stroke. I know many that use the new versions that are strong and powerful believers.


A little leaven leaveneth the who lump.

Indeed! That argument cuts both ways. There are some that say the KJV is leavened. I have found the Spirit to be way more powerful than the letter.


Consider a new convert. He goes to the Bible book store and asks for a Bible. The salesperson says which one. He says you know the Bible. The salesperson says, well you know there are many different Bibles. And he says well you know the true Bible. The salesperson says, well I don't know which one is the true Bible, they are all a little bit different. It depends on what you like. We have a Bible for almost every one.

The new convert will be way better off with many versions over the KJV, IMO. If he is genuinely new, he won't even understand some of the old english words that are used.


It seems like every Tom, Dick, and Harry has their own Bible translation, and it is only going to get worse.

Or better.


If I was a new convert, I would begin right off the bat to have doubts about what I could trust as far as the Word of God is concerned. But then I can see Satan with a big smile on his face saying, ye shall not surely die.

Be careful, the fruit may taste sweet and be pleasing to the eye, but what is the end of it?

Exactly! The word of God is powerful and sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts deep and yet gives life. I have found this to be the case with the NASB.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 09:18 PM
[quote=tgallison;1670677]

Sure there is. People favor one verse over another many times. It's not the versions fault for what people do.

I think it God's approach to give the new versions. For certainly, God taught me way more through the new version than he did the older one. As I said before, I have met many more people with real power in their lives that use a modern translation than use the KJV and I have been around both groups extensively. However, I do know people that use each that walk in power.

I think that a broad stroke. I know many that use the new versions that are strong and powerful believers.

Indeed! That argument cuts both ways. There are some that say the KJV is leavened. I have found the Spirit to be way more powerful than the letter.

The new convert will be way better off with many versions over the KJV, IMO. If he is genuinely new, he won't even understand some of the old english words that are used.

Or better.

Exactly! The word of God is powerful and sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts deep and yet gives life. I have found this to be the case with the NASB.

You don't understand. Down the road there are going to be so many translations that will not be recognizable with your NASB, and the new converts are not going to have your wisdom. They won't know what direction to go as far as what is the truth. I can see it clear. I see it now, and I see it down the road.

The door has been opened, and who is going to have the strength to close it?

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 09:18 PM
But thats the point. If there was only one version, there wouldn't be anything to pick and choose.

To me its Satan's method of operation. Present something pleasant to the eyes. Isn't that the approach of some modern translations. A lot easier to understand. The words to the eyes are a lot more pleasant. And then to make one wise. Oh our translation is an update, we have learned a lot that they didn't understand, we are much wiser than they were. The taste is sweet and hurts nothing for the present. But how about down the road.

In Genesis it brought death. Here it will bring unbelief. Not for the short haul, for it is sweet.

A little leaven leaveneth the who lump.

Consider a new convert. He goes to the Bible book store and asks for a Bible. The salesperson says which one. He says you know the Bible. The salesperson says, well you know there are many different Bibles. And he says well you know the true Bible. The salesperson says, well I don't know which one is the true Bible, they are all a little bit different. It depends on what you like. We have a Bible for almost every one.

It seems like every Tom, Dick, and Harry has their own Bible translation, and it is only going to get worse.

If I was a new convert, I would begin right off the bat to have doubts about what I could trust as far as the Word of God is concerned. But then I can see Satan with a big smile on his face saying, ye shall not surely die.

Be careful, the fruit may taste sweet and be pleasing to the eye, but what is the end of it?


I agree with the new convert being a bit overwhelmed with Bible versions however I think your is a bit overreaching. I do not see anything necessary diabolical by wanting a Bible in language that is easier to understand. SOmething that is easier to understand does not mean "watered down" or "untrue". YOur post also seems to think greater knowledge is somehow inherently evil. It is not and I am thankful we know more now than before. Finally, the reality is that Ancient Hebrew and Greek are not the same as 21rst Century English. There will *always* be choices translators make in rendering one language to another. Generally the options are pretty innocuous. Indeed, when rendering a language like Ancient Hebrew, with only maybe a a few thousand words, into a language with millions of words, there HAS to be choices as English as any number of synonyms that are not available in Hebrew. Further, Hebrew has no vowels, punctuation or numbers. I am thankful the Bible is in so many editions that it can be read and received by the greatest number of people.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 09:26 PM
You don't understand. Down the road there are going to be so many translations that will not be recognizable with your NASB, and the new converts are not going to have your wisdom. They won't know what direction to go as far as what is the truth. I can see it clear. I see it now, and I see it down the road.

The door has been opened, and who is going to have the strength to close it?

Perhaps. But as I have previously stated, I thank God that he got me a NASB. The power of the word of God contained in it has radically changed my life. I am confident that somewhere down the road that others will continue and try to pollute the word of God. That has been the theme of Satan from the beginning. However, let us not forget that the updates to translations have been powerful in their effect for the kingdom. Even the KJV has been revised a few times. Very few people actually have a version as it was written in 1611.

Revisions as languages change is not a bad thing. Polluting the word is.

RoadWarrior
Jun 12th 2008, 09:29 PM
So, is there a KJV Chinese Bible, KJV Swahili, KJV Japanese, etc., etc. ?

Or do the KJVO crowd insist that you can only read the Bible if you learn 1611 English?

Should we be burning all the other translations, and picketing outside the offices of Wycliffe, etc.?

Why does this argument remind me of Don Quixote and windmills?

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 09:31 PM
So, is there a KJV Chinese Bible, KJV Swahili, KJV Japanese, etc., etc. ?

Or do the KJVO crowd insist that you can only read the Bible if you learn 1611 English?

Should we be burning all the other translations, and picketing outside the offices of Wycliffe, etc.?

Why does this argument remind me of Don Quixote and windmills?

What often amazes me is how some folks push the KJV all the while ignoring that it was updated several times. And of course it was compared with previous english versions of the bible to and revised accordingly.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 09:37 PM
[quote=seamus414;1670692]I agree with the new convert being a bit overwhelmed with Bible versions however I think your is a bit overreaching. I do not see anything necessary diabolical by wanting a Bible in language that is easier to understand. Something that is easier to understand does not mean "watered down" or "untrue". Your post also seems to think greater knowledge is somehow inherently evil.

I do not think greater knowledge is somehow inherently evil. What I think is inherently evil is thinking we are wiser than those that went before us. We gain knowledge, but it is without wisdom.

Our gene pool is not evolving, it is degrading.

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 09:46 PM
I didn't think you were calling me, or anyone else, an 'agnostic'
I knew you were "meaning that they do not know what the Bible is or isn't"
I find this in-appropriate.

The KJV-only position is a legitimate position to take
But to say that those who disagree with you 'do not know what the bible is or is not' is inappropriate in my opinion. Your clarification only reveals that I was right in my evaluation of what you said in the first place.

Hi Matthew. Then if you think it is inappropriate to say that you do not know what The Bible is or what it is not, then again, all you have to do is tell us exactly where we all can get a copy of what you think is the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible so we can compare it to whatever we are using now. Shouldn't be too hard for you to do, right?




You have since added the word 'whateverist' to your repetoire.
This is also, in my opinion, inappropriate.
You would be much better served to express your opinions without claiming that non-KJV-onlyists are 'bible-agnostics' and 'whateverists'


You guys seem to me to be really thin-skinned if you take offense at being called a Whateverist. I have seen several times the term "KJV onlyist" applied in these discussions to my position and I take no offense at this name at all. Believe me, I have been called a whole lot worse for taking a stand on the King James Bible issue. When I ask you guys to identify for us what you think is the inerrant, complete and 100% true bible what I usually get is a non-answer, or I'm referred to the non-existent and never seen by you "originals", or else I hear that so and so likes all the versions or uses 3 or 4 different ones. This seems to me like a Whateverist mentality. "Whatever" is what you guys who won't identify the pure bible seem to be saying.

Why not try giving us a straight answer to this simple question? Where can I get a copy of the complete, preserved, inspired and infallible words of God? Do you or do you not believe that such a thing exists?

I can answer this simple question. Why won't you?

Thanks,

Will K

brandplucked
Jun 12th 2008, 09:51 PM
Hi Will,

I have been reading this thread, and trying to determine where I wanted to step in. You gave me the opening here.

If you believe (as I think you are saying) that the KJV is the only legitimate translation of the Bible (even compared to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the scriptures);

then what is your opinion of the translations into many other languages throughout the world, being made in an effort to give the Bible to people in their own language?

You teach Spanish - do you require that all Spanish-speaking peoples learn English so that they can read the Bible in the KJV?

Do you think it is impossible for a person to believe in God and be a "Bible-believer" if the preferred version is something other than KJV?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Hi Road Warrior. Thank you for your interest in this vital subject. I believe I already addressed this question, but you may have missed it. Here is my response again. I made a copy of it because I get asked this so often. It is a good and valid question.


If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

I am frequently asked this question by other Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any bible is now the inerrant words of God.

I finally decided to put a concise answer together to respond to this common question. Here it is.

This is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.

Now that the gospel is going out to the nations, the only promise from God we have is that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.

But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude. In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Today it is only the King James Bible believer who boldly maintains that there really is an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible on this earth that a person can actually hold it in his hands and read and believe every word. All modern version proponents deny that any tangible, “hold it in your hands and read Bible” IS now the inerrant words of God.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Bible. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

To the degree that foreign language bible versions follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Bible, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJB, to that degree they are corrupt and inferiour.

I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Bible. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found the King James Bible. If there are several different versions in their own native language (Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then I would recommend they use the one that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. If they only have a translation based on the ever changing, modern Critical Texts, then they should thank God for what they do have and use it.

Regarding the question of “Well, what about before 1611?” please see my article here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

As for: “Can a Translation be inspired?” please see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

This is how I see it and what I believe. Not a difficult question at all.

In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

By His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 09:52 PM
Hi Matthew. Then if you think it is inappropriate to say that you do not know what The Bible is or what it is not, then again, all you have to do is tell us exactly where we all can get a copy of what you think is the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible so we can compare it to whatever we are using now. Shouldn't be too hard for you to do, right?

Will, when a guy wants to chill out, let him chill out. ;) Just a note from your friendly neighborhood mod.


Why not try giving us a straight answer to this simple question? Where can I get a copy of the complete, preserved, inspired and infallible words of God? Do you or do you not believe that such a thing exists?

I can answer this simple question. Why won't you?

Thanks,

Will K

Your arguments remind me of the pharisees to the blind man. I say to you the same thing he said "This I know, I once was blind but now I see". The NASB has been used by God in much power in my life. I was once in great bondage to sin, and through reading his word, specifically the NASB, God has worked great deliverance in my life. As the Pharisees said "But this man can't be from God." And his response "What? Have miracles like this ever been done and you can't see he is from God?"

The miracles worked in the life of people concerning faith in God, sanctification of from sin, death to self and many other things prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NASB is full of the living word of God.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 10:05 PM
What often amazes me is how some folks push the KJV all the while ignoring that it was updated several times. And of course it was compared with previous english versions of the bible to and revised accordingly.

Brother Mark

If the Jews had such a cavalier attitude toward the Word of God as we do today, what would our Bible look like. Can you imagine 3400 years worth of translations? I can't.

What was wrong with the Jew's respect for the Word of God?

theleast
Jun 12th 2008, 10:12 PM
I hope that people aren't implying that the Holy Spirit's interpretation can be diluted by translation.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 10:13 PM
Brother Mark

If the Jews had such a cavalier attitude toward the Word of God as we do today, what would our Bible look like. Can you imagine 3400 years worth of translations? I can't.

What was wrong with the Jew's respect for the Word of God?

Nothing wrong with their approach. However, as the language changes, then so do the translations. I can't read 1611 english much better than I can Spanish. Some scholars today believe the original penning of the scriptures was in ancient Hebrew. You think the Jews today can read ancient hebrew?

I wouldn't call my approach cavalier but rather a seeking. I wanted desperately to know God. I found in him the pages of the NASB. What's wrong with that?

theleast
Jun 12th 2008, 10:22 PM
Nothing wrong with their approach. However, as the language changes, then so do the translations. I can't read 1611 english much better than I can Spanish. Some scholars today believe the original penning of the scriptures was in ancient Hebrew. You think the Jews today can read ancient hebrew?

I wouldn't call my approach cavalier but rather a seeking. I wanted desperately to know God. I found in him the pages of the NASB. What's wrong with that?

Actually the Jewish priests do learn ancient Hebrew.

RoadWarrior
Jun 12th 2008, 10:22 PM
Hi Road Warrior. Thank you for your interest in this vital subject. I believe I already addressed this question, but you may have missed it. Here is my response again. I made a copy of it because I get asked this so often. It is a good and valid question.


Yes I missed it because I glaze over with so much text to read.





In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.


Hmmm. Do the Jews no longer have the true words of God?



The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.
...
Not a difficult question at all.

But requires an exceedingly lengthy answer, apparently.

So you would be willing to admit that people can read the translations and find salvation, but then they must learn English so that they can .. what?
If God can preserve the salvation message in any language into which it is translated, why does everything else seem to you to be a muddle? Can God not preserve His Word entirely, and speak to all peoples in all places?


In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

Maybe it's just me, but I think this is a rude statement to make. I happen to love the KJV, well actually what I use is the NKJV, but I also read quite comfortably in other versions as well. We should never belittle someone for the version that they use, it is just unkind.

God is perfectly able to speak to the heart of a man in the heart of Africa who has never even heard of Jesus (read the story of Samuel Morrison) and who speaks no English and has never even seen a white man.

If there is a 100% version, it would be the Original - which was written down in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. But you have dismissed those. The truth is that translation from one language to another has difficulties that are challenging to overcome. But what would be the goal that God had in mind when He wrote the Bible? That message comes through loud and clear in every version, because it is repeated throughout the books and the centuries in which they were written down. God is able to, and has, preserved what needed to be preserved. The Bible in whatever language, can be used by Him for salvation. It can also be used for these things:

2 Ti 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. NKJV

matthew94
Jun 12th 2008, 10:50 PM
You guys seem to me to be really thin-skinned if you take offense at being called a Whateverist. I have seen several times the term "KJV onlyist" applied in these discussions to my position and I take no offense at this name at all. Believe me, I have been called a whole lot worse for taking a stand on the King James Bible issue. When I ask you guys to identify for us what you think is the inerrant, complete and 100% true bible what I usually get is a non-answer, or I'm referred to the non-existent and never seen by you "originals", or else I hear that so and so likes all the versions or uses 3 or 4 different ones. This seems to me like a Whateverist mentality. "Whatever" is what you guys who won't identify the pure bible seem to be saying.

I'm not thin-skinned. If it were up to me, I'd be allowed to discuss the position you are taking here accurately, but I am not. And if I am not, then you should not be either. It's about fairness, not skin-thickness levels.

The label 'KJV-onlyist' is, all agree, an accurate representation of your position. You'd be alarmingly silly not to accept it. It's not meant as a slap to any degree. In fact, I'd imagine you take righteous pride in the label! But the label 'whateverist' is surely meant as a back-handed slap against those whom disagree with you. You know that. I know that. We all know that. So let's not play games about it.


Why not try giving us a straight answer to this simple question? Where can I get a copy of the complete, preserved, inspired and infallible words of God? Do you or do you not believe that such a thing exists? I can answer this simple question. Why won't you?

I stand by my previous statement that I'd be better off not discussing this issue with you. If you are truly interested in my position on this subject, there are dozens of KJV-only threads available, many of which I've been an active participant.

theleast
Jun 12th 2008, 11:00 PM
Again, do you guys actually think that the bible is up to private interpretation? Don't you know that the Holy Spirit intercedes on your behalf and interprets for you?

How a subject like this goes 10 pages is beyond me. It doesn't matter WHAT interpretation you use! Don't add unto the book and don't take away from it. Don't interpret it. SUBMIT yourself to it. That's it. It is that simple.

tgallison
Jun 12th 2008, 11:20 PM
I wouldn't call my approach cavalier but rather a seeking. I wanted desperately to know God. I found in him the pages of the NASB. What's wrong with that?

That is commendable. God's word will not come back void.

The problem is not so much what is in the newer translations, as much as what is left out. If you have a small hole in the bucket, and one drop comes out at a time, given enough time, the bucket will become empty.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 11:23 PM
That is commendable. God's word will not come back void.

The problem is not so much what is in the newer translations, as much as what is left out. If you have a small hole in the bucket, and one drop comes out at a time, given enough time, the bucket will become empty.

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree with your premise. As I have said before, I see far more power in those that use multiple translations than in those that use only the KJV. Granted, my experience is very finite/limited and not a good measure for all others.

The Parson
Jun 13th 2008, 01:16 AM
OK ya'll. Thread closed for either some creative clean-up or we can start a new thread and not repeat the errors of this one.