Why does it matter....

For those who use the modern versions I suggest a little test:

It has been said by many that the NIV is the most readable and accurate Bible on the market today and is the best representation of a modern version based on the Eastern or Minority text. It is said that it is based on "older" and "more reliable manuscripts" than the King James Bible.

In regard to the above statements an "acid test" is the only fair way to put the NIV and the KJV "to the test" as one might say... so get out your NIV, a pen and when you have completed the test I encourage you to then take a KJV and see the result...

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version (NIV) Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).
--------------------------------------------

1.Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

2.According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon? a. ______ b. _______

3.According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth? _______________

4.According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name? ________

5.In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV. ________________

6.In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________

7.According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear? ____________

8.According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name? _____________

9.In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know? _______________

10.In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do? a. _______ b. ________

11.In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus? ___

12.According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written? a. _______ b. _______ c. ________

13.In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish? ______________

14.John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man? __________

15.What happened each year as told in John 5:4? ____________

16.In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus? _______

17.In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism? _______

18.What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6? _______

19.Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34. _______

20.Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command? a. _______ b._______ c. _______

21.Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV. _____________

22.First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh? _______

23.In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do? a. _______ b. _______

24.Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7? a. ___ b.___ c. ___

25.Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"


How did you do with this most popular modern version? There are many other such questions that could be posted here, but I think if you followed the instruction and took the test....you got the point!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cooper Abrams:
For those who use the modern versions I suggest a little test: ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow ... Never seen this before.

 

The little test above is a straw man, based on the false assumption that the KJV is more accurate than modern translations.

The fact of the matter is that the originals are the only proof of accuracy of scripture, and since we do not have those, we have to live with variant manuscripts. That's not a major problem, unless you hold to the untenable position of inerrancy. Then, because you do not have the originals and cannot prove inerrancy, you must choose one set of manuscripts over another.

I have read these translation arguments with interest for several months now, and I still do not understand the basis for KJV Onlyism. They insist that modern versions have been corrupted by Catholic influences, yet they seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the KJV was the product of an Anglican church which was still, for all intents and purposes, Catholic with a few minor adjustments.

Is this insistence simply based on ignorance? Is it because they hold to teachings and doctrines that are based on some of the bad parts of the KJV? Is it because they are too lazy to do the language study that is so absolutely necessary to a complete understanding of the scripture? I really don't get it. I've always been taught that if a person felt called by God to pastor and preach, then they are obligated by that calling to seek out an education which will provide them with a solid Greek and Hebrew language basis, and that this is part of that calling.

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

Pastor Larry,
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

 

I honestly have a harder time understanding some posts on this board than I do the KJV. I really disagree with it being hard to read. I don't have a problem with going back to the original Greek & Hebrew texts, & even have a paraphrased (gasp) Living Bible I used to use to get a different view of something hard to understand. I don't use it much lately.

My use of the KJV only is based on personal preference. But....be it 1611, or 1723, or 1764, or whenever the final draft came out, the KJV has been preserved, at least 250 years.

I like the KJV. It reads like the word of God. I believe it is the word of God. Is it the only one ?....I don't know. But it is the one I will go by.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
[QB]I have read these translation arguments with interest for several months now, and I still do not understand the basis for KJV Onlyism. They insist that modern versions have been corrupted by Catholic influences, yet they seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the KJV was the product of an Anglican church which was still, for all intents and purposes, Catholic with a few minor adjustments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Despite most KJVO's disdain for catholicism, they are practicing their own version of it. As the catholic must hold to a monolithic authority for instruction, i.e., The Church, KJVOs hold to the KJV as final authority. They are in essence practicing a protestant catholicism. True reformational protestantism wants God's word from the originals, understanding that it is translated reliably in common language translations.

The KJV is a translation of choice, but it is not The Gold Standard.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Pastor Larry,
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who me??? Sarcastic??? Never ...

It is funny to me how people come up with these kind of things and apparently never think of the implications of them. And then they act like the killed the big one.

It reminds me of Grady's book, The Final Authority. At a church where I was formerly on staff, the pastor had Grady in one night shortly after I had gotten there. Now this pastor was a rabid KJV Onlyite and at that time I was kind of neutral. (Interestingly, the longer I was there and the more I heard of the arguments, the less convinced I was. I was not convinced by the MV side; I was convinced to be against the KJV Only side by listening to the KJV Only people). Anyway, be that as it may, the pastor asked me after the service what I thought. I said I thought it was pretty weak -- no real substance. The pastor agreed with me. It seems that Grady's "authoritative book" was seen through by even some on his side. The arguments such as the one presented above have been repeated over and over again as if they are the final nail in the coffin of the MVs. They are not now ... they never have been ... and they never will be. They are convincing only to those who do not understand the issues and the truth concerning textual preservation and transmission. People write weighty tomes on issues that they have not studied enough to grasp the implications. Then when faced with the issues, they end up fabricating arguments that are inconsistent with the position they want to hold. Then they pound the pulpit and shout louder.

 

i guess the discussion will go no where if we all do not subscribe to the plenary verbal inspiration of scriptures.
Please understand what does PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION mean!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ventin:
i guess the discussion will go no where if we all do not subscribe to the plenary verbal inspiration of scriptures.
Please understand what does PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION mean! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At first glance your statement is reasonable and true. By verbal, plenary inspiration, we mean essentially that the words of Scripture are fully inspired (verbal dealing with words, plenary with extent or fullness). Someone else can give a more precise definition.

At a second glance however, your statemetn is a non-issue. I assert that no one here denies that (at least among those who are presently involved in this discussion; there are some in this forum who probably would deny that). In fact, I would question whether it is possible to deny that and still remain orthodox in the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

The question is, Out of 5000+ differing manuscripts containing words beyond number, which are the verbally, plenarily inspired words. In other words, your statement is theoretical; the actual question is practical. You apparently have decided, for reasons you have yet to divulge, that the TR (one of its editions) is the verbally, plenarily inspired Scripture. Most orthodox Bible-believers disagree with you for reasons that are very cogent and reasonable.

IMO, the burden of proof is on you to defend your position. Tell us why you have chosen the TR as the Scripture. By what authority or for what reason have you made such a judgment?

 

I'm not a KJv "only" because I "want to be", but because I "SEE" something in it not found in
other versions. "PERFECTION".

The "Words" use in writing the KJ isn't chosen at random, they're words written "precisely"
as the "spirit inspired them to write".

How many have "wondered", or even ask the question, "why was a particular word, phrase
used, why was it worded in that manner"???

If the "spirit inspired" each of the words to be written, wouldn't you think each was for a
particular reason??? "THEN WHY"???

I'll tell you why, there's a "continuity" in the words the KJ uses, like a "thread", you can take a
"word/phrase" and trace it from Genesis to Revelation and discover "Exactly" what is meant,
because what is said isn't always what is meant, if taken "out of context".

The "Modern Version" break this "thread" when they use "other words" in trying to "simplify"
the Bible.


A verse is translated according to man's understanding, he doesn't "see/know" the
precision of wording that is required for that verse to support every other word/doctrine in
the Bible.

When you "combine" the "day of Christ" in with the "day of the Lord", you leave out the
"rapture, seven years prior to the "day of the Lord", not to mention all the other verses that
separate those days.

This is just one example of how confusing/wrong modern version can be.


The Bible tells us the natural man can't know the things of God, for they are spiritually
discerned, if we have the "Spirit" to teach us, why do we need a "simplified" Bible, and
comparing manuscript to manuscript, searching for "God's word" is pure foolishness, it's only
revealed by the "Spirit".

There's a lot of "carnal reasoning" give here as "proof", the KJ couldn't be 100% accurate,
too many manuscripts, too many translations, too many years, have passed for it to be 100%,
kinda like an "Evilutionist" arguing his point, GOD couldn't have done that.

The "only way" anyone will ever recognize "God's word" is "BY THE SPIRIT", and that
leaves me asking, "why are we not of "one mind and one accord"??

That "Spirit" will one day bear witness as to who spoke as it spoke and who didn't, I
wouldn't forget that, because that's one witness we'll "ALL" hear testify, either for or against
us.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
I'm not a KJv "only" because I "want to be", but because I "SEE" something in it not found in other versions. "PERFECTION".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how do you know this? It hasn't come from the text because the text doesn't say this, at least no one has given a reference for it yet. Nor does it come from revelation because revelation ceased 1900 years ago, 1600 years before the KJV. It hasn't come from the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit has convinced the majority of believers opposite of you. It has not come from diligent examination of the text because the KJV does not perfectly match any manuscript of Greek.

So the question is, How do you know it is perfect?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll tell you why, there's a "continuity" in the words the KJ uses, like a "thread", you can take a
"word/phrase" and trace it from Genesis to Revelation and discover "Exactly" what is meant,
because what is said isn't always what is meant, if taken "out of context". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?? What is said isn't always what is meant? You have singlehandedly thwarted communication. Fortunately you are wrong on that one. Furthermore, your hypothesis doesn't explain why the kJV translated the same word different ways. The Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write it one way and the KJV translators to write it another? Surely not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bible tells us the natural man can't know the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned, if we have the "Spirit" to teach us, why do we need a "simplified" Bible, and comparing manuscript to manuscript, searching for "God's word" is pure foolishness, it's only revealed by the "Spirit". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But previously you said it was teh Holy Ghost who was doing this. Do you even know??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There's a lot of "carnal reasoning" give here as "proof", the KJ couldn't be 100% accurate, too many manuscripts, too many translations, too many years, have passed for it to be 100%,
kinda like an "Evilutionist" arguing his point, GOD couldn't have done that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of which you have dealt with. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. And the word you are looking for is evolutionist.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


And the word you are looking for is evolutionist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I meant "EVIL-utionist".

 

But how do you know this? It hasn't come from the text because the text doesn't say this, at
least no one has given a reference for it yet.

And it won't be "proved" by "words", God's word isn't in the "wisdom of man", but in the
"power of the spirit". (1Co 2:4 )

Like Peter, none can't recognize the "Word of God" except the Spirit show it to you, If you
haven't seen that, maybe you need to question that spirit you're following.

Nor does it come from revelation because revelation ceased 1900 years ago, 1600 years
before the KJV.

I "assume" you're saying "everything" in the Bible has been "revealed", there's nothing "hid"
within the text that we don't know??

If that is the case, you're "badly mistaken", neither you, I
or anyone else knows all the info contained in that book, we only know "in part".

It's only when you see the perfection with which the book is written, do you realize how much
information is there, more than anyone can ever know. (Ro 11:33)

It hasn't come from the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit has convinced the majority of
believers opposite of you.

"majority of believers opposite of you",

Many will seek to enter saying "lord, lord," but don't, only a "few" find the way.

The "Holy Spirit" will testify as too who was/wasn't listening to it, I know in whom I have
believed, and I'll be "extremely happy" to hear it testify.

"THANK YOU LORD", I'm in the minority.

It has not come from diligent examination of the text because the KJV does not perfectly
match any manuscript of Greek.

That might be because we're not "Greek". LOL

As you found out asking the little boy his age, word for word translation doesn't always work,
but it's not "words" that are being translated, it's concepts, principles, doctrines, which, when
inspired by the "Holy Ghost", will be written with a "precision" that only the "Holy Ghost"
can attain.

Whether you, and others, realize it or not, admitting you don't know recognize "God's word",
is admitting you don't have the "spirit" to show you.

"Spirit bears witness to Spirit".
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,

By the spirit, I hear that spirit speaking when a man is preaching "in the spirit", and, by the
spirit, I also hear the spirit speak in "his written words".

I see a substantial amount of doctrines, beliefs and opinions posted on these forums which
contains little to none of "spiritually revealed intelligence's".

The "falling away" prior to the rapture is quite evident.

Few depend on the Spirit for guidance any more, and it shows up in their "words".

Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

but if I bear witness as the spirit teaches, then I have a witness who is "all truth".

It isn't me any will have to win their argument against, but the "other witness".

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And it won't be "proved" by "words", God's word isn't in the "wisdom of man", but in the "power of the spirit". (1Co 2:4 ) Like Peter, none can't recognize the "Word of God" except the Spirit show it to you, If you haven't seen that, maybe you need to question that spirit you're following.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are denying the text-based meaning of Scripture? The meaning of the text is found in the words. As Baptists, we believe in the final authority of Scripture. You are suggesting an authority outside of that. I reject any authority besides Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I "assume" you're saying "everything" in the Bible has been "revealed", there's nothing "hid" within the text that we don't know?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes everything in Scripture has been revealed. If it hadn’t been revealed we wouldn’t have it. And furthermore, there are things in the text that we do not understand. There is no hidden meaning in the sense you are looking for it. Your hypothesis destroys all possibility for rational communication.

Consider this: I say the hidden meaning is that the NASB is the perfect inspired word of God. I further claim that the Holy Spirit has shown this to me and that therefore, you are wrong. On what basis will you disagree? You cannot disagree and claim the Spirit because the Spirit has shown me that the NASB is the perfect Word of God. You cannot go to the text to disprove it because you have already admitted the text can’t prove it. In short, you have no proof except your word, which is not worth much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's only when you see the perfection with which the book is written, do you realize how much information is there, more than anyone can ever know. (Ro 11:33)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rom 11:33 does not deal with Scripture. It deals with God. And you have yet to show me this perfection or to tell me how you found out about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PL: "majority of believers opposite of you", SB: Many will seek to enter saying "lord, lord," but don't, only a "few" find the way. The "Holy Spirit" will testify as too who was/wasn't listening to it, I know in whom I have believed, and I'll be "extremely happy" to hear it testify.
"THANK YOU LORD", I'm in the minority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here again you misuse Scripture. I said “Majority of believers;” You reference a verse that has nothing to do with believers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As you found out asking the little boy his age, word for word translation doesn't always work, but it's not "words" that are being translated, it's concepts, principles, doctrines, which, when inspired by the "Holy Ghost", will be written with a "precision" that only the "Holy Ghost" can attain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you are admitting that the translation philosophy of the NIV is a good philosophy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whether you, and others, realize it or not, admitting you don't know recognize "God's word", is admitting you don't have the "spirit" to show you. "Spirit bears witness to Spirit".
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you are have stooped to foolishness. I can assure you that the Spirit has shown some stuff to me about this issue. He did it through the Word of God. You have denied the authority of the Word of God and substituted this mystical experience of the Spirit in place of it. You have asserted the Spirit as proof of your position when the Spirit has not revealed that to you.

Then you quote half of Rom 8:16. If you quote the whole thing, you would realize that you use yet another verse out of context. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit [/b]that we are the sons of God.[/b] This verse does not address the Spirit bearing witness as to the perfection of the KJV.

 

Another thread which has degenerated into ad hominem attacks (by S. Baptist).

Time to move on!