lets see how this goes

[Its_real_for me !]

ABP+, BSB, NASB, NET, NKJV, NRSV, UASV

Plus others for the OT, Greek and Hebrew

KJV and occasionally Matthew Henry commentary, for me but multiple versions ? You really need that much help? ALot of watered down info there.

 

[Silverhair]

KJV and occasionally Matthew Henry commentary, for me but multiple versions ? You really need that much help? ALot of watered down info there.

You asked what version I used and I use them all. It seems you are the one that needs help as you use the Matthew Henry commentary.

Have to ask what you see as watered down by reading the word of God in various bibles?

Why do you stick with an out dated version?

 

[Its_real_for me !]

You asked what version I used and I use them all. It seems you are the one that needs help as you use the Matthew Henry commentary.

Have to ask what you see as watered down by reading the word of God in various bibles?

Why do you stick with an out dated version?

outdated ? LOL LOL LOL what's the NKJV? just easier to read... same text for the most part. Wonder why late Billy Graham would use the KJV at his crusades. I don't need to be spoon fed with easier text, or as some would say text that were missing. Funny how that happens from time to time. Or controversy about the KJV having texts that later versions don't have.

 

[JonC]

what version do you read ?

Depends. If I am studying the NT I prefer the Novum Testamentum Graece. I also like the BHS. For general reading I prefer the NIV and NASB (using the NASB as an English reference for study).

I studied Greek and am fairly comfortable with the language. I studied Hebrew to a lesser extent and am less comfortable with Hebrew.

Generally, I do not look to the TR except (I do not like the Latin influence). I read the KJV, but keep in mind the Anglican agenda snd Katin influence.

 

[JonC]

outdated ? LOL LOL LOL what's the NKJV? just easier to read... same text for the most part. Wonder why late Billy Graham would use the KJV at his crusades. I don't need to be spoon fed with easier text, or as some would say text that were missing. Funny how that happens from time to time. Or controversy about the KJV having texts that later versions don't have.

The KJV was written at a high school reading level. It is not difficult to understand, except that the English words have become antiquated.

 

[Silverhair]

outdated ? LOL LOL LOL what's the NKJV? just easier to read... same text for the most part. Wonder why late Billy Graham would use the KJV at his crusades. I don't need to be spoon fed with easier text, or as some would say text that were missing. Funny how that happens from time to time. Or controversy about the KJV having texts that later versions don't have.

If you want to use the KJV that is your option. Why should one struggle with words who's meanings have changed or ones that are not even in use now?

So because BG used the KJV you do. That is a rather strange reason.

My dad always used the KJV until he passed but that does not require me to use it.

 

[Mike B]

See where I'm going with this ?

Yes, I do.

You have determined that you are both the judge and jury...not just for music, but also preaching styles
and bible versions. If it doesn't fit your desired model, it is anathema, and your heart is filled with the
bitterness of your choices.

Matthew 24.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

**********************************************

So, let's cut to the chase here....

The issue you are having is not the music, preaching or the bible version....it is your attitude.
You say your are saved, so as a brother in Christ I would urge you to prayerfully consider
these things, and approach the Lord with a meek and humble heart.

My father had a great saying: "When I start to find fault with all that I see, it's time to start looking
at what's wrong with me."

I will pray for you.

 

[canadyjd]

It one thing if a person gets up and has trouble singing, and to be honest they aren't called on to sing a solo, typically. Even though they stink, you don't tell them, but I'm sure they know, and you tolerate them in love.

Doesn't sound like you are doctrinally sound, I encourage you to find the verses yourself. Study to show yourself approved is does have biblical support.

Since you believe it’s biblically supported, you should provide the scripture to support your assertions.

Otherwise, it sounds like you are making things up.

While you are looking up these passages, please show us the passage that allows you to “confront” a woman from another church whose daughter sang a song you didn’t approve of.

While you are looking up those passages, please show us the passage that allows you to go on a public board to gossip about another persons’ son.

Again, I urge you to find Christian peace and joy in your life instead of focusing on other Christian’s you disagree with.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

I thought about the troll issue, but I was in a church about 25 years ago with a man who had the very same views, same attitude, same mindset.

It could be a generational thing, with those dedicated to church life in the 50’s and 60’s and saw lots of changes during that time, which they believed undermined the worship of God.

New music, new versions of the Bible, new styles of worship, polity, even clothing accepted in church.

He would be in his 90’s today, if still living.

I suppose it could be him. He was hopping churches and stirring things up back then.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

Wonder why late Billy Graham would use the KJV at his crusades.

I can answer your question (no need to wonder).

Billy Graham used the most popular English translation in his evangelism. The KJV was, for most of his active ministry, the most read translation (even those who were not Christian had a degree of familiarity with the KJV).

The KJV is an Anglican translation and the US began as English colonies. England banned the printing of other translations to enforce the use of the KJV as it supported the English monarchy.

In the middle 1980's the NIV became the best selling and most popular translation. Following Graham's practice, we would use the NIV for evangelism. But truthfully, and translation that accurately presents the gospel can be used for evangelism. Words are symbols, and the most appropriate words to use are those that best communicate the message.

 

[JonC]

I thought about the troll issue, but I was in a church about 25 years ago with a man who had the very same views, same attitude, same mindset.

It could be a generational thing, with those dedicated to church life in the 50’s and 60’s and saw lots of changes during that time, which they believed undermined the worship of God.

New music, new versions of the Bible, new styles of worship, polity, even clothing accepted in church.

He would be in his 90’s today, if still living.

I suppose it could be him. He was hopping churches and stirring things up back then.

Peace to you

I agree. By "troll" I meant one holding a paticular view engaging specifically to disrupt (the BB has specific rules regarding slandering God's Word based on translation).

For example, I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is fine on a Baptist board (historically we Baptists disagreed among ourselves on this topic). But if I joined a Reformed Baptist forum and started off with arguing against PSA then I would be a troll.

I do not question the sincerity of @Its_real_for me ! . I question his discernment and motives.

 

[Its_real_for me !]

The KJV was written at a high school reading level. It is not difficult to understand, except that the English words have become antiquated.

Antiquated.... It's not hard to figure out, it's called looking up the word in greek and hebrew, that sounds pretty antiquated ! LOL

Disrupt... and all the signers of the declaration were disrupted, correct, Jon ! If the KJV is HS level, I guess post versions are even easier !

 

[Its_real_for me !]

Yes, I do.

You have determined that you are both the judge and jury...not just for music, but also preaching styles
and bible versions. If it doesn't fit your desired model, it is anathema, and your heart is filled with the
bitterness of your choices.

Matthew 24.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

**********************************************

So, let's cut to the chase here....

The issue you are having is not the music, preaching or the bible version....it is your attitude.
You say your are saved, so as a brother in Christ I would urge you to prayerfully consider
these things, and approach the Lord with a meek and humble heart.

My father had a great saying: "When I start to find fault with all that I see, it's time to start looking
at what's wrong with me."

I will pray for you.

nice try smokey, music is to honor the Lord, not pacify you, bible versions are just an excuse to some people that they think they are ahead of the game when it comes to knowledge, preaching is to edification, not to force growth or postition.

The Pharisees were jews who had no knowledge to Glorify God in thier hearts but the Law to condemn what Christ came to fulfill the Law.

You call pulpit pounding evangelists, edifying, or contemporary preachers without a suit attire dressed casual respectful? I don't. I hope the latte line isn't too long during the service. Worship service is supposed to be solemn in attire, music, and preaching, and if you are gonna judge me in regards to a Pharisee, then I suggest you spend more time prayerfully studying the word of God !!

 

[JonC]

Antiquated.... It's not hard to figure out, it's called looking up the word in greek and hebrew, that sounds pretty antiquated ! LOL

Disrupt... and all the signers of the declaration were disrupted, correct, Jon ! If the KJV is HS level, I guess post versions are even easier !

Not an antiquated message but an antiquated purpose because the language is antiquated.

The purpose of the KJV was to provide an English translation of Scripture in the vernacular to support the English monarchy and correct errors in the Bishop's Bible for use as the standard text for the Anglican church.

But the language of the KJV is no longer the vernacular. It is obsolete. People cling to it for one or more reasons - tradition, superstition, heresy, ignorance of translation.

One biblical principle is Scripture in the vernacular, which is why the New Testament was written in koine Greek (the Greek used by the common people when the NT was written).

This was important to the KJV translators and without this goal the KJV would not exist.

KJV-only advocates are a discredit to the KJV translation.


Understanding the biblical source text is much more than looking up words in Hebrew and Greek. If that is your method it is no wonder you fail to grasp God's Word.

But if that is your method, as ignorant as it is of languages, why use the KJV as a middle man? Just use the Hebrew and Greek. This way you will at least skip the Latin.


The KJV is high school level, but not today's language. We studied British literature in high-school, extensively. We read a lot of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the poetry of Spencer. But these are no longer required reading in high school.

Providing a translation in the 17th century vernacular was important. It was an important goal of the KJV translators. You abandon the very purpose of the KJV too quickly and without justification.


That said, I interact with you knowing you are nothing but a troll. But the interaction may help Christians who are struggling with understanding the nature and purpose of translations.

 

[Mike B]

nice try smokey, music is to honor the Lord, not pacify you, bible versions are just an excuse to some people that they think they are ahead of the game when it comes to knowledge, preaching is to edification, not to force growth or position.

Okey dokey Sparky. You win.

BTW, at least I can spell "their".

 

[Its_real_for me !]

t

Not an antiquated message but an antiquated purpose because the language is antiquated.

The purpose of the KJV was to provide an English translation of Scripture in the vernacular to support the English monarchy and correct errors in the Bishop's Bible for use as the standard text for the Anglican church.

But the language of the KJV is no longer the vernacular. It is obsolete. People cling to it for one or more reasons - tradition, superstition, heresy, ignorance of translation.

One biblical principle is Scripture in the vernacular, which is why the New Testament was written in koine Greek (the Greek used by the common people when the NT was written).

This was important to the KJV translators and without this goal the KJV would not exist.

KJV-only advocates are a discredit to the KJV translation.


Understanding the biblical source text is much more than looking up words in Hebrew and Greek. If that is your method it is no wonder you fail to grasp God's Word.

But if that is your method, as ignorant as it is of languages, why use the KJV as a middle man? Just use the Hebrew and Greek. This way you will at least skip the Latin.


The KJV is high school level, but not today's language. We studied British literature in high-school, extensively. We read a lot of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the poetry of Spencer. But these are no longer required reading in high school.

Providing a translation in the 17th century vernacular was important. It was an important goal of the KJV translators. You abandon the very purpose of the KJV too quickly and without justification.


That said, I interact with you knowing you are nothing but a troll. But the interaction may help Christians who are struggling with understanding the nature and purpose of translations.

tsk tsk tsk !! Now Now !! I have to look up Vernacular ! Is that greek or hebrew ?

 

[JonC]

t

tsk tsk tsk !! Now Now !! I have to look up Vernacular ! Is that greek or hebrew ?

It is English, a middle school word. Teachers taught about the English vernacular when introducing antiquated forms of English, typically before reading Romeo and Juliet.

For me, this was 9th grade (I remember because we had to read it in turns during class, each of us having roles).

It is the everyday language or dialect spoken by ordinary people. This is why the NT, although quotes were not spoken in Greek, was written in kione Greek. It was the common everyday language of the area. Aramaic was commonly spoke among Jews, but not Gentiles. Latin was the official language of Rome but excluded many Gentiles and Jews. Kione Greek was the common vernacular.

 

[Its_real_for me !]

It is English, a middle school word. Teachers taught about the English vernacular when introducing antiquated forms of English, typically before reading Romeo and Juliet.

For me, this was 9th grade (I remember because we had to read it in turns during class, each of us having roles).

It is the everyday language or dialect spoken by ordinary people. This is why the NT, although quotes were not spoken in Greek, was written in kione Greek. It was the common everyday language of the area. Aramaic was commonly spoke among Jews, but not Gentiles. Latin was the official language of Rome but excluded many Gentiles and Jews. Kione Greek was the common vernacular.

you sounds like a bunch of hooey to me...

 

[JonC]

you sounds like a bunch of hooey to me...

Lol.... I know it sounds that way to you.

To be perfectly honest, there is absolutely no way a person who lacks a grasp of common English (who struggles with words like "vernacular") has any business trying to understand Jacobean English.



For others who may be interested, the character of a psalm is instrumental accompaniment.

But the instruments used may not be pleasing to our ears, at least not initially, because biblical music is foreign to most of our experience.

The music lacked harmony (it sounded nothing like our hymns). In the Temple and Tabernacle music often included loud drums and horns (expressing God's glory and power with loud and powerful sounds). Accounts relate how the music in the Temple echoed throughout the city.

In other words, the sounds were more akin to hard rock (in that it would sound harsh to us) than our harmonious hymns. The singing was chants.

Synagogues banned musical instruments with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as a sign of mourning. But that was later than what would have been experienced in biblical times.

 

[Its_real_for me !]

Lol.... I know it sounds that way to you.

To be perfectly honest, there is absolutely no way a person who lacks a grasp of common English (who struggles with words like "vernacular") has any business trying to understand Jacobean English.



For others who may be interested, the character of a psalm is instrumental accompaniment.

But the instruments used may not be pleasing to our ears, at least not initially, because biblical music is foreign to most of our experience.

The music lacked harmony (it sounded nothing like our hymns). In the Temple and Tabernacle music often included loud drums and horns (expressing God's glory and power with loud and powerful sounds). Accounts relate how the music in the Temple echoed throughout the city.

In other words, the sounds were more akin to hard rock (in that it would sound harsh to us) than our harmonious hymns. The singing was chants.

Synagogues banned musical instruments with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as a sign of mourning. But that was later than what would have been experienced in biblical times.

dude get real ! Now look who's acting like a pharisee !! Music wise is related to eastern culture, this is western culture and I really don't think the Lord minds what we sing here, as long as it's solemn. Common English ???? Yeah it's real common, i hear that word at the pulpit, and on the street all the time, everywhere ! Get a life.

What exactly is your baptist back ground, coz us regular folk know baptists as pulpit pounding, evangelists and don't speak your language ! What are you Baptist USA or something like that ?