The accuracy of the bible

First avoid sites that go to extremes. For example the URL above is from the COC, a cult, and is simply defending that passage of Scripture because it needs Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

to defend its heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Second, avoid the radical KJVO sites. Any site that claims the KJV is inspired and infallible ought to be avoided. As John said it amounts to a cult. The position cannot be defended. Some go as far as to say that the KJV corrects the Hebrew and the Greek. Others would say that a missionary such as I, would have to teach people in foreign nations Shakesperean English first (so that they can understand the KJV Bible) before they can be saved. Still others would deny me of my salvation because the person that led me to the Lord used Good News for Modern Man!!
Their postions vary, and can be very radical.
No translation is inspired. Only the originals are inspired and we don't have them anymore. But God promised to preserve His Word. He did so in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. As I said before, my personal belief is that they are preserved in textus receptus. Others believe differently.

On the end of the spectrum avoid those sites which deliberately say that we don't have the Word of God. The Bible is like any other book. In other words, those sites which are modernistic and deny the inspiration of the Bible completely.
Between the above position and the KJVO position you will find the truth. In the final analysis it is up to you to "study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
DHK

 

Disciple,

DHK speaks wisely.
Practical example: We had a "D'now Weekend" at our church this weekend (a student event/retreat). For the passage and theme we used, I was unable to find the curriculum that would fit. So, I wrote it. I looked at 7-8 different translations (as well as the Greek New Testament), commentaries, and tons of prayer (and coffee!).

I found a few places where the word was nuanced a bit differently. I compared the texts, and looked at the context...

One passage, I thought the KJV summed it up the best. The others weren't wrong, but the KJV hit the nail on the head.

The other passage...I thought the NIV and NASB summed the thought up the best. Same idea as above, but a different translation seemed to be more precise.

In summary, "how you do this" is through hard work studying the scriptures, seeking wise counsel, and tons of prayer.

It's been nice watching this thread take a turn more toward dialogue. God's best to you...

 

How do you do what? You find out what a website is about be reading what is in it.
I took your URL, deleted everything after .com which then took me to the home page. I clicked on "churches." A map of the USA came up. I clicked on a State. Up popped a list of COC churches. The website is sponsored by the COC.

Most other sites you simply have to read the statement of faith. It is not that difficult.

As to your own study, learn to study the Bible in a systematic way.
DHK

 

CUT...multiple post. Mods, you can get the other duplicate if you'd like. Sorry.

 

xdisciplex: //Or what about hell,grave and sheol?

//Imagine you want to warn somebody and tell him:

//Either you repent or you go to the grave!

//Do you think this will impress this person at all? Of course not.//

'Hell' is one of the top dozen 4-letter curse words
in 21st Century English. Why would you cuss somebody and
hope to win them to the Lord?

"Hell' comes from Middle English, Old English, Old High German,
and Islandic. It probably refers to the interior of a volcano.'
"Hell' means the Greek idea of the punishment of the damned.

By contrast 'Sheol' comes from the Hebrew and means the Jewish
idea of the abode of the dead.

I prefer the reading 'Sheol' in the Old Testament instead of the
Islandic 'hell'. BTW, there is a difference in the New Testament
between the grave - the abode of the dead, and 'the eternal lake of fire'
which is like 'hell'.


Tee hee & BTW, IT would behove one to read before attacking people in
this Forum. A person attacked the wimpist debater of all, Brother JohnV
and got wupped by him tee hee

Also, five or six of us have files debuking whatever strange idea
one has about Lucifer and Isaiah 14:12. See, we read THE REAL KJV,
the KJV1611 Edition footnote for Isaiah 14:12. One aught to read
that translator footone before sparing the "Day Starre" subject here.

Tee hee, Brother JohnV has cut more slack for other folks here than all
the rest of us put together tee hee

 

Diggin in da Word (posted in a now dead topic):
//NASB has made over 8000 changes in 1995 from it's 1977 edition.
None of them spelling or printing. //

Such statements have no meaning in debates unless one of the
two following conditions are also present:

1. A reference to the data and who developed it
and how the developed it.

2. You personally did the study and found the results.

What is totally missing is things like:

What was the criteria for a change?
For example, From the KJV1611 to the KJV1769 the word 'sonne' was
changed to 'son'. Is this counted as a spelling change, a printing
correction, a word change, or a meaning change? If this change
was made more than once in the Bible, was it counted:
A. once per Bible
B. once per Testament
C. once per book
D. on each occurance?

Data* is meaningless unless it is related what that data means.
Your 'over 8000 changes in the NASB' is a meaningless point of
data that proves nothing and helps nobody, I.E. (in otherwords)
fits the scriptrual definition of GOSSIP.

* note: I've made over $1,000,000 (one Million Dolla's) as a
professional data collection/handling automater - I no my data.

Diggin in da Word: //NASB has made over 8000 changes in 1995 from it's 1977 edition.
None of them spelling or printing. //

Robycop3: //Howdya know those changes are wrong? Or, is it just a guess? //

Better yet: How do you know those changes exist and what they mean?

JOhnV: //KJVOists believe
that the KJV and the KJV alone is the sole authoritative, inspired
perfectly preserved, and infallible Word of God for all Christians
everywhere. This is a completely false doctrine (since it is not
found in scripture, and all who love the KJV must take a stand
against such doctrinal error. //

Amen, Brother JohnV -- Preach it!
I love the KJV so much I have three different paper KJVs
and two different electronic (E-sword) KJVs.
The three different versions are:

A. KJV1611 Edition
B. KJV1769 Edition
C. KJV1873 Edition

(Arithemetic note: 3+2=5 ONLY when the '3', the '2' and the '5'
are measured in the same units. Here I have a case where the units show
that 3+2=3 with no Arithemetic problems.

 

I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible in its original manuscripts.

 

Here is section I of the Baptist Faith & Message
of 2000 concerning the Bible:

 

JohnV:

You posted the following at the other thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2666.html

JohnV said:
I absolutely love the KJV (the 1769 edition). It's one of the first bibles I ever studied in depth. My love for the KJV is why I defend it so staunchly from the single-translation-onlyists who besmudge it by making it the center of their manmade doctrine .


Now you say this:

If it is your belief that any "additions" must be avoided, then you must stay awy from the KJV. Why? Because the source texts of the KJV are more recent than the source texts of man of the so-called "modern versions". Therefore, following your logic, the KJV source texts added the verses in question .
It is inconsistent logic to stick to the KJV out of concern for "additions

How come you have two mouths !

Your own post betrays you !

[ March 01, 2006, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

The same may apply to you, JohnV.

Everyone will recognize it if you post all the articles which you posted on this thread to the thread : I love KJV Bible where you mentioned " I absolutely love KJV.

Liars say lies with some reservation though, like saying I hate Only-ism, then calling KJV as addition to the Bible.

 

Then you agree that Jack Chick is a liar.

Now it is YOU who lie, because I never said that. Even if I did (which I didn't), it would be hypocritical of you to hold Jack Chick to a different standard than me. So if you're calling me a liar, then you have no choice but to acknowlege that Jack Chick is a liar.

 

DHK,

This is an insert from the "Truthmagazine" link posted earlier by Disciple.

You called it a cult for whatever reason, but why?
Is it because it does not agree with your understanding or the bible?

 

Looks like more KJVOist nonsense. Why do you pay attention to such nonsense?

 

Only when It threatens their doctrine.

Other than that, it all good.

Bye the way I love my NIV and my NASB and my Amplified and my KJV and other version I have. My fave is NIV.

 

KJVOism is false doctrine. Case closed. It's not a matter of debate. If you've learned nothing else on this board, you should at least have learned that much by now.