What's wrong with "bishop" and "bishopric"? Nothing!

[Bob Alkire]

Genesis 25:16 Of Castles and Nations.




Hi Bob. Thanks for the questions. I think the way to resolve the difficulty you think you see here is to look more carefully at the English words used and their various meanings.

Don’t pick a definition that doesn fit and then try to claim error in the King James Bible. Be of faith and look for the explanation that makes the most sense; not the one that creates the biggest contradiction. Unless of course you are LOOKING FOR contradictions.


Oxford Compact Dictionary defines Nation =
• noun a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.
— ORIGIN Latin, from nasci ‘be born’.


The Cambridge Dictionary gives two definitions of the word nation.
1 a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc:
All the nations of the world will be represented at the conference.
The Germans, as a nation, are often thought to be well organized.
Practically the whole nation watched the ceremony on television.

2 a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history, but who might not all live in one area: the Navajo nation

Not only does the King James Bible say “twelve princes, according to their NATIONS.” but so also do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster’s 1833, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, the Douay-Rheims, the Hebrew Names Version, Green’s literal 2000, the NKJV 1982, and the 21st Century KJV. Will Kinney

Thanks for your reply.

I don't believe that I have pick a definition that does not fit.
You picked a few that agree with versions that agree with your point, I'll give a few that don't and one that does;

NET ©These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names by their settlements and their camps – twelve princes 1 according to their clans.
NIV ©
biblegateway Gen 25:16
These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.
NASB ©
biblegateway Gen 25:16
These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages, and by their camps; twelve princes according to their tribes.
NLT ©
biblegateway Gen 25:16
These twelve sons of Ishmael became the founders of twelve tribes that bore their names, listed according to the places they settled and camped.
MSG ©
biblegateway Gen 25:16
all the sons of Ishmael. Their settlements and encampments were named after them. Twelve princes with their twelve tribes.
BBE ©
SABDAweb Gen 25:16
These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names in their towns and their tent-circles; twelve chiefs with their peoples.
NRSV ©
bibleoremusGen 25:16
These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes.
NKJV ©
biblegateway Gen 25:16
These were the sons of Ishmael and these were their names, by their towns and their settlements, twelve princes according to their nations.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I didn't know we Bible believers had a different God

Will, your "KJVO God" is too small.

Well, I wasn't aware that we Bible believers had a different God, but maybe you are right. It seems the God of the conflicting and contradictory modern versions is far more open ended and unlimited than the God I see in the King James Bible. For instance, the God portrayed in many MVs can be deceived; He has origins, and there was a certain day when God the Father became the Father of the Son, and in fact there are 2 Gods as seen in the NASB, ESV in John 1:18. This "God" can also say totally contradictory statements, numbers, names and whole verses and apparently they are all true and inerrant. Maybe you are on to something here.

I'll have to think about it some more.

Will K

 

[gb93433]

It is totally amazing to me that someone could allegedly read the whole study I did on these two words and then come back with the comments you make here. You did read it, right?

Did you take a look at the Hebrew text and the Greek translation of the Hebrew text. I am quite sure that the Jews in 250 B.C. would have had a better idea on how to translate Hebrew words into Greek than you would to translate Hebrew words into English.

Do you really believe that they had the same European castles that were around during 1611 in 1050 B.C.?

Didn't you see how many different Bible translations out there translate the same Hebrew word as nations and people? Or even to a lesser degree the example of "castles".

It is readily apparent that you do not know how to interpret in light of the historical context of passages. You need to do some studying on interpretation and translation. If you were more proficient with the text you would not need to translate. When one begins to understand a language then they do not translate. Would you accurately translate the words ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cóma está? the same? Of course not if you know the correct usage of those words. One of those questions would be the same as insulting if asked by a younger person to an older person.

My sources are the MT and LXX as I pointed out earlier not someone elses' thoughts. Get out your Greek and Hebrew concordances and you will see how the words are used in their context.

What are your sources?

 

[gb93433]

Well, I wasn't aware that we Bible believers had a different God, but maybe you are right.

Read James 1:22.

It seems the God of the conflicting and contradictory modern versions is far more open ended and unlimited than the God I see in the King James Bible.

The early church did not own their own Bibles. So what do you think they did?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Will the true Bible please stand up

Thanks for your reply.

I don't believe that I have pick a definition that does not fit.
You picked a few that agree with versions that agree with your point, I'll give a few that don't and one that does.

Hi Bob. Thanks for the list of differing bible versions. I am well aware of the fact that there are a multitude of different bible versions out there with sometimes totally different meanings for verses even when they supposedly are translating the same underlying Hebrew or Greek texts.

I can give you probably a hundred such examples. The central question is whether or not the Sovereign God of the universe has indeed given us a true and inerrant "book of the LORD" or not.

Let me toss one your way.

Even if you don't read the first part, see the second with all the different versions. It's titled Bible Babel in Action. Check it out.

Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969 edition - "...but after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be slain, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOTHING AGAINST HIM."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Very confused sources results in very confused conclusions

My sources are the MT and LXX as I pointed out earlier not someone elses' thoughts. What are your sources?

Hi gb, No wonder you are so confused. The Hebrew texts and this alleged pre-Christian fantasy called the LXX (there are several of them) are in almost total disagreement with each other.

Just by way of a minor example, what have you managed to come up with in the way of the God inspired reading for 1 Samuel 13:1 by consulting your sources of the Hebrew, the LXX and your "infallible" NASBs. Any ideas?

As for my sources, I have only one Book that I believe is the Standard and Final Authority for the inspired and inerrant written words of God. You may have heard of it. It is called the King James Holy Bible and you can pick one up at your local bookstore for just a few dollars. And you do not have to know archaic Hebrew and archaic Greek to be able to read it either. Really a pretty good deal when you stop to think of it.

Get one, read it, and believe every word. You won't go wrong.

Will K

 

[gb93433]

As for my sources, I have only one Book that I believe is the Standard and Final Authority for the inspired and inerrant written words of God. You may have heard of it. It is called the King James Holy Bible and you can pick one up at your local bookstore for just a few dollars. And you do not have to know archaic Hebrew and archaic Greek to be able to read it either. Really a pretty good deal when you stop to think of it.

So the Christians and Jews before 1611 believed a Bible that was a lie?

You failed to answer the following question: "Would you accurately translate the words ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cóma está? the same?

You should join the discussion at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/

I noticed that your profile says that you are a furniture maker. What kind of furniture do you make?

 

[Bob Alkire]

[May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.
Will K

Will, I think you again for your reply.

I think you might of missed my opening, I perfer the KJV, I think it is the best or I have been using it from the 40's on as a child. At two schools I went to one used the KJV and the RSV, I didn't get into the RSV because I had problems with it. At another school they used the KJV and the ASV, I would say the ASV1901 was their number one. I did enjoy the ASV 1901 back then and I do today from time to time.

I don't buy into the KJO deal and I have prayed about it and studied about it and neither the Holy Spirit has taken me to your view or my study of the subject.

But I think I've taken this off subject long enough.

In His grace,
Bob

 

[EdSutton]

With all respect, may I request that Will J. Kenney and Annie5 keep their previous discussions on the "OB" (whatever that is) off the Baptist Board, for the benefit of us who are not even familiar with this group, or have never read it.

Sure, Ed, I'll be glad to. Let me make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you saying that our discussion here (about versions in general) is not welcome?

No, the discussion is fine, although this same ground has been plowed many times over, by many different individuals, on the Baptist Board, IMO.

Or are you saying that I should stop referring to OB (Online Baptist), the board on which I have interacted with Mr. Kinney before? Either way, just let me know, and I'll try to oblige.

No, I'm not saying that either. However both you (Annie5) and Will J. Kenney have made references to 'points' both of you have made on the other board, in this thread, of which the BB would have no knowledge. This is an open forum for the BB, so none of us on the BB should have any need or reason to have search elsewhere, or to go to another board, to get "up to speed" on what discussion has been occurring elsewhere, IMO.

A little background: OB is a KJVO board, and did not allow us to finish our recent discussion b/c they censor things like that. If you prefer, I can transfer our current discussion to a new thread so that this one isn't hijacked. Again, just let me know your preference.

Again, IMO the background of the "OB" is irrelevant to that of the Baptist Board. And a new thread would change nothing, in this. If there is a salient point to be made, then let either or both of you make it here, rather than assume we (should) know what you talking about, or should go elsewhere to find it, please, is my only request in this.

For an example, Will J. Kenney asked this, all the way back in post # 54.

Hi Annie. Let's take one thing at a time, OK? If I am not mistaken, aren't you the Annie that just a couple weeks ago admitted to me that you do not believe that there exists any Bible in any language (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) that is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

If you are not that particular Annie, then is this still your view too?

The answer to these questions was actually "NO!" as far as the Baptist Board was concerned, for I did check, and you had, at that time, made a grand total of 5 posts on the Baptist Board, none of which said remotely close to any such thing. And as I have already said, I have no intention of hunting up what was said on some other Board, then or now, for I simply do not have that much time available.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

I find all this discussion very interesting. I think Will Kinney has conducted himself in a very Christlike way, as have most of the rest of you. However, I think if some of you find this thread hard to follow, or are letting it upset you, as in calling for it to be "LOCKED", just simply do not open it and read it. You can control it all with a click, or non-click, of your mouse. Carry on.

 

[gb93433]

Hi gb, No wonder you are so confused. The Hebrew texts and this alleged pre-Christian fantasy called the LXX (there are several of them) are in almost total disagreement with each other.

That just shows where there is trouble in translation. For one ot translate there must be a full understanding of not onlky the text, but also culture and the correct usage of words. How would understand the sentence "He passed away"? One who does undertsand the culture of that saying might assume one vaporized. We would say something entrorely different if he was hit by a car. We might say he was killed. If it were intentiomnal we might say he was murdered.

As for my sources, I have only one Book that I believe is the Standard and Final Authority for the inspired and inerrant written words of God. You may have heard of it. It is called the King James Holy Bible and you can pick one up at your local bookstore for just a few dollars. And you do not have to know archaic Hebrew and archaic Greek to be able to read it either. Really a pretty good deal when you stop to think of it.

What did the early Christian use? English of pre-1611? The fact is that one can know all about God and memorize the Bible and yet never know God because he is disobedient. The disobedient do not make disciples of Jesus Christ but of Satan their father.

I lived near a KJVO church in CA that publishes a lot of KJVO material that you most likely have read but they do not reach people in the community. Their fruit shows. They are producing wood instead of fruit.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

a Bible that was a lie?

So the Christians and Jews before 1611 believed a Bible that was a lie?

You failed to answer the following question: "Would you accurately translate the words ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cóma está? the same?

You should join the discussion at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/

I noticed that your profile says that you are a furniture maker. What kind of furniture do you make?

Hi gb. Three short things here. Well, 2 short. I thought the ¿Cómo estás? thingy was rhetorical. Of course they are different. The second thing ties into the first. I have been teaching high school Spanish (again) for the last three years. I know the Spanish language quite well. Lived in South America for 6 years, but this was like 30 years ago. I love Spanish and the Spanish speaking people.

Now for the first question. With your "infallible" NASB you obviously have a Bible [attack on the word of God deleted] or at least contains several of them, which proves it to be a false witness. I notice you never did get around to answering what your conflicting "sources" of the Hebrew, the alleged LXX and your NASB have managed to tell you regarding how 1 Samuel 13:1 should read.

As for before 1611, as I pointed out, I do not believe God brought forth His perfect Book in one volume until 1611. But I do not believe a person needs a perfect Bible to get saved or learn much about God's words. I don't even believe that a person has to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible in order to get saved. If that were the case, then most people on this forum that I have had the pleasure to talk to, would not be Christians.

Generally speaking, the Bibles that began to be published (printing presss not even invented till around 1450) before the KJB were better than many that are around today like the NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV stuff. Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims had more of God's words in it than do these modern versions. Basically the earlier bibles followed the Traditional Greek text which included most or all of the 45 verses omitted by the RSV, and the hypocritically omitted 17 or 18 by such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV. (If they take out these 17 or 18 based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, then why not go all the way like the RSV did? Because they wouldn't sell so well.)

As for the Traditional text, take for example 1 John 5:7 (which is inspired Scripture and the strongest verse on the Trinity). It was in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, Geneva Bible, Douay-Rheims. It is STILL in the Greek Orthodox bibles used all over the world today. It was in all bibles until Westcott-Hort came along with the Revised Version in 1881 and then the bibles began to get far worse.

The older Bibles generally followed the Hebrew texts for the O.T. Not even versions like the Revised Version nor the ASV of 1901 messed with it very much. But since the liberal RSV came out in the 1950's, then the others like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have followed suit and your mvs are only getting worse.

Nowadays, fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the modern ones they are so taken up with, they read less and less. The vast majority of seminarians and pastors today do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and inerrant words of God.

Doesn't the Bible say something about there coming a falling away from the faith that will happen in the last days? Yes, it does, and it is happening now.

May God be please to open the eyes of more of His people as to where the true "book of the LORD" is found today and has been for almost 400 years now - the King James Holy Bible.

God bless,
Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Yes, but do you believe it is the inerrant words of God?

Will, I think you again for your reply.

I think you might of missed my opening, I perfer the KJV, I think it is the best or I have been using it from the 40's on as a child. At two schools I went to one used the KJV and the RSV, I didn't get into the RSV because I had problems with it. At another school they used the KJV and the ASV, I would say the ASV1901 was their number one. I did enjoy the ASV 1901 back then and I do today from time to time.

I don't buy into the KJO deal and I have prayed about it and studied about it and neither the Holy Spirit has taken me to your view or my study of the subject.

But I think I've taken this off subject long enough.

In His grace,
Bob

Hi brother Bob. The problem that you have, as I understand it, is that you just "prefer" the King James Bible but you don't believe it really is the providentially preserved, complete, inspired and 100% inerrant words of God. At least the Holy Ghost has been nudging you in the right direction. Hopefully He will take you all the way and then you will actually have a real and tangible Bible in mind when you say "I believe the Bible is the inerrant words of God."

I appreciate the fact that you have been a gentleman in dealing with this issue.

God bless,
Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Keep it going until people lose interest

I find all this discussion very interesting. I think Will Kinney has conducted himself in a very Christlike way, as have most of the rest of you. However, I think if some of you find this thread hard to follow, or are letting it upset you, as in calling for it to be "LOCKED", just simply do not open it and read it. You can control it all with a click, or non-click, of your mouse. Carry on.

Hi Baptist4life. Thank you for your comments. I too would hope that they would keep the discussion going for those who are interested in this vital topic about the inerrancy of the Bible. I think some are calling for it to be locked or shut down simply because it is making them uncomfortable when they have to actually think about or re-examine what it is that they really believe about "The Bible" and its inspiration and inerrancy.

God bless,
Will K

 

[gb93433]

Hi gb. Three short things here. Well, 2 short. I thought the ¿Cómo estás? thingy was rhetorical. Of course they are different.

You never explained how you would accurately translate those questions.

I notice you never did get around to answering what your conflicting "sources" of the Hebrew, the alleged LXX and your NASB have managed to tell you regarding how 1 Samuel 13:1 should read.

I did answer it in the previuos post. I spend almost zero time anymore looking at Englsih translations. So that is a moot point. Would you spend time examing a translation of a Spanish document if you are fluent in Spanish? Why would I translate the text if I can read and undertsand it. Do you translate Spanish and English back and forth in your mind when you speak Spanish.

As for before 1611, as I pointed out, I do not believe God brought forth His perfect Book in one volume until 1611.

So your point is that the scripture Jesus used was corrected later by the 1611 English translation?

Basically the earlier bibles followed the Traditional Greek text which included most or all of the 45 verses omitted by the RSV, and the hypocritically omitted 17 or 18 by such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV.

You do know that text was added in later by scribes in an effort to explain the text? Which text of Mark 16 do you subscribe to?

The older Bibles generally followed the Hebrew texts for the O.T. Not even versions like the Revised Version nor the ASV of 1901 messed with it very much. But since the liberal RSV came out in the 1950's, then the others like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have followed suit and your mvs are only getting worse.

That is like saying a saw is not needed to build a home because it could be built with an ax. If all you had was an ax and never saw a saw you would never think about a saw. If you only had one manuscript to work with then you would do the best with what you had. If you had over 5000 manuscripts then you might see seomething else just like the man who only had an ax and saw a saw for the first time.

Nowadays, fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the modern ones they are so taken up with, they read less and less. The vast majority of seminarians and pastors today do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and inerrant words of God.

How would asses their salvation and their view of scripture at the same time. I would wonder about their salvation first. Compare that to the religious folks of Jesus' day. Isnpt it just the same. Few things have changed. How many Christians own slaves today? If oyu were to erad Ecclesiastes you would know that it speaks of things that have changed--nothing new under the sun.

Doesn't the Bible say something about there coming a falling away from the faith that will happen in the last days? Yes, it does, and it is happening now.

When did the last days begin? Any worse now than during Jesus' day and in Rome? Remember Gehenna?

 

[EdSutton]

Hi Ed. Aren't you being just a tad inconsistent here with this view of outright condemning any form of "onlyism"? I have seen several posters here at this forum, and in fact, almost any Baptist church site that posts any section on what they believe about The Bible, is the clear statement that "ONLY the originals are inspired and inerrant; translations are not."

Why they keep using the present tense verb "are" as though these originals were something that they have actually seen and compared and that still exist is a mystery to me, but in any event they and several people at this very forum keep telling us that ONLY the originals were inspired and inerrant.

Now, isn't THAT a very clear case of "onlyism"? Why don't you jump on that form whenever you see it?

Will K

FTR, although I may have not stated this clearly, in this particular post, I was and am referring to "version Onlyism", as in a translated version of Scripture, although I am still fairly sure you actually do recognize this.

{Unfortunately, I do not know where one can find a [SCOWL!] 'smilie'.}

Ed

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Spanish too ;-)

Would you accurately translate the words ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cóma está? the same? Of course not if you know the correct usage of those words. One of those questions would be the same as insulting if asked by a younger person to an older person.

You never explained how you would accurately translate those questions.

Hi gb. Maybe I never explained it because it makes no sense at all in Spanish. The first part ¿Cómo estás? is perfectly good Spanish and just means How are you?. It is the informal form. However ¿Cóma está? is pure nonsense. If you said that to a naive speaker they might look at you and say ¿Qué? = Huh? It doesn't mean anything in Spanish. Maybe you should brush up on your Spanish speaking skills.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

1 Samuel 13:1 Have some of God's words been lost?

Quote:
I notice you never did get around to answering what your conflicting "sources" of the Hebrew, the alleged LXX and your NASB have managed to tell you regarding how 1 Samuel 13:1 should read.

I did answer it in the previuos post. I spend almost zero time anymore looking at Englsih translations.

I must have missed it. I even went back and still couldn't find your answer about what 1 Samuel 13:1 says from your resources. I know for a fact that the Hebrew reads one way, your alleged LXX doesn't even have the verse, and the 2 different NASBs out there so far, both read differently than either one of them because they just made up those numbers.

Quote:
As for before 1611, as I pointed out, I do not believe God brought forth His perfect Book in one volume until 1611.

So your point is that the scripture Jesus used was corrected later by the 1611 English translation?

Not at all. The Lord Jesus used the Hebrew Bible and He, as the Author of Scripture Himself, has every right to expound, explain, define and rephrase what He himself inspired in the first place. The KJB follows the Hebrew texts that Jesus used. It is versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard that often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. Your "bibles" are getting worse, not better.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I'm agin it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi Ed. Aren't you being just a tad inconsistent here with this view of outright condemning any form of "onlyism"? I have seen several posters here at this forum, and in fact, almost any Baptist church site that posts any section on what they believe about The Bible, is the clear statement that "ONLY the originals are inspired and inerrant; translations are not."

Why they keep using the present tense verb "are" as though these originals were something that they have actually seen and compared and that still exist is a mystery to me, but in any event they and several people at this very forum keep telling us that ONLY the originals were inspired and inerrant.

Now, isn't THAT a very clear case of "onlyism"? Why don't you jump on that form whenever you see it?

Will K

FTR, although I may have not stated this clearly, in this particular post, I was and am referring to "version Onlyism", as in a translated version of Scripture, although I am still fairly sure you actually do recognize this.

{Unfortunately, I do not know where one can find a [SCOWL!] 'smilie'.}

Ed

Hi Ed. You said you were against ANY form of onlyism. I merely pointed out the obvious to you that most of the Christians here and on just about any Baptist site or most any other Christian site you look at, if they address what they say they believe about "the Bible" they almost always say something like: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant. Translations are not."

That is a very definite form of "onlyism". In fact, it is far worse than "version onlyism". At least with those like myself who believe that there really is a "version" or Bible out there in Babelonia land that IS the inspired and inerrant words of God, we have a definite Book in mind when we affirm what we believe.

The originals ONLYism view is expressing two really silly ideas. Number 1, it is denying that there exists an inerrant and infallible Bible NOW, and Number 2, it is professing a faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?:laugh:


Will K

 

[Annie5]

Annie, you can assume whatever you like, but I am asking you to not go on assumptions but on what the actual TEXT of the NIV says.

And I'm asking you to do the same. (As a matter of fact, as someone who professes to be such a scholar on this issue, it should just be a given that you had already done the necessary exegetical and hermeneutical homework before even posting what you have here. That you have not done so is very telling when it comes to your credibility.)

Does the NIV teach in its text that the Son of God had ORIGINS? Yes or No? Does the text of the NIV teach that there was a certain day when God BECAME the Father of the Son of God? Yes or No?

I'll answer these questions with a question, and in so doing will make my answer--and my point--clearer: Does the KJV teach in its text that we are saved by works? James 2:24 (KJV) says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." And your answer is...?