My dog ate my BAGD!

Again, you laugh at lies. These men have yet to show one place where our side is in error. We have shown dozens of places where they are. We have shown places where they contradict Scripture, both in content and manner. We have shown places where they lie about the facts. We have shown places where they lie about their opponents. These are men who are dividing the church of the living God over their own personal problems. They do not offer one word from God to support their position (because they do not have one). They offer only their own, ill-formed, and unthought through positions. It is a travesty that unthinking and immature believers are trapped in their web of deceit. A deacon and I were lamenting this very fact this morning at our men's breakfast and Bible study. What a shame it is ...

 

I was sitting here trying to think of things to say against you non-KJB believers and realize that it will not do me any good. I will just have to pray that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and see that God has preserved his word in one English Bible. With that said, I'm curious to learn how you all believe the other versions. I know that it may have be posted before, but please tell me again. Which version of the Bible is correct and by what means do you have to prove it?

 

Why?

This is the statement that is wrong.

God Bless
Sherrie

 

Round and round we go...

It's not a version but the text of the original language.

In my case (choosing by faith) it is the Traditional Text (modernly called the Textus Receptus but known by other names) which was the text of choice for the the Church for 15 centuries.

For me, this is the Word of God.

I can't prove it but I hold it in my hands as the preserved Word of God by faith.

Dear brother You CANNOT prove your position either.

Also you need to deal with which KJV (1611-1769) and/or Oxford/Cambridge Editions.

How many differences does it take to make things "not the same"? ONE.

HankD

 

Not only that ... God has preserved his word in other English Bibles as well. The Holy Spirit will only open ones eyes to the truth, not to error. To pray that the Holy Spirit would contradict the precious word of God is a hopeless prayer at best.

What do you mean? Why would you not believe a faithful translation??

A version is correct when it accurately translates the original language texts. Correctness is measured by that standard, not by the standard of the words of men such as Ruckman, Gipp, and other false teachers. That is the major error. You have set their words as the standard and in so doing have chosen a wrong measuring stick. As the KJV translators admitted, any faithful translation (yea even the meanest translation) is the word of God. To deny that is to deny the truth of Scripture and to deny the words of the KJV translators that you trust so much.

Rather than trying to find something to say against those of us who believe God's word, why not devote the time to learning the truth about this matter?

 

Matthew 18:21-22 (KJV1769)

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord,
how oft shall my brother sin against me,
and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee,
Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. "



Matthew 18:21-22 (nRSV)

Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord,
if another member of the church sins against me,
how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?"
22 Jesus said to him, "Not seven times,
but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.

 

But since the originals are lost, how can that happen?

 

This is what I have trouble with, was not the originals written in Greek and Hebrew? If they were, wouldn't God know that the language of today would be English and provide us with his perfect word? Another question is, is God's word perfect?

 

Question. Why does the NRSV have "member of the church" when brother can mean literal or figurative? Are we not to forgive or literal brother the same way?

 

HomeBound: "Are we not to forgive or literal brother the same way?"

Corrected for English:
Are we not to forgive our literal brother the same way?

The two versions mean the same thing
using different words.
Of course, we are to forgive our literal
brother.
And i forgive you, figurative brother
for offensive use of the English Language.

 

They do not mean the same thing. The KJB says "brother" and the NRSV says "member of the church." The NRSV does not like to forgive the literal brother, why is that? BTW, thanks for the grammar lesson professor

 

I agree. It should not even be labeled God's word.

 

I agree.
It is not an error translation though.

 

"was not the originals written in Greek and Hebrew? If they were, wouldn't God know that the language of today would be English and provide us with his perfect word?"
Actually the language of today isn't english. English simply is one of the languages that is used at the moment. There are several different versions of English, sometimes the same word means diffrent things in English depending on the version of English used.

 

I agree. It should not even be labeled God's word. </font>[/QUOTE]but if it were the KJB that did it, wldn't it be dismissed as a mere "typo" or printer's error?

"membor"!

 

Dear homebound and others,

I choose The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version F.H.A Scrivener, 1894.

According to the publisher the text is a compendium (my word) of the Stephanus, Beza and Elzivirs text but follows the Beza 1598 text as the primary authority. It is the Greek text (99 44/100th) underlying the AV.

It is my choice, others have theirs. I have no problem with that. Even with the Wescott and Hort 1881 Greek Text which holds Aleph/B as greater authority than the TR.

I disagree with their theory (W&H - older is better, shorter is better).

But that is as far as it goes. I don't enter into strife with those who do agree with them, and I don't call my brethren apostates who use the WH/Aleph/B based texts.

In fact in multitudes of places some of the MVs are more accurate and faithful to the text than the KJV because the English is modernised and/or a KJV weak translation of a verse is strengthened.

In the spirit of the KJV translators and the honor they gave to the versions of their day, I can call the NIV the Word of God. I have it along with several others and very often I do verse comparisons (again in the Spirit of the KJV translators) to find the "sense of the Scriptures". Yes I have taken Greek and Hebrew, but often the MVs show a keen insight in the choice of an English word or phrase over the older versions.

Don't cut yourself off from those who see the Scriptures as infallible and inerrant but use the MVs, it is not in your best interest.

IMO.

HankD

 

This is what I have trouble with, was not the originals written in Greek and Hebrew? If they were, wouldn't God know that the language of today would be English and provide us with his perfect word?</font>[/QUOTE] And this is what I have trouble with... Why do you persist in questioning God's providence? Why is this your question instead of: "Why didn't God leave us with a common language?" or "Why doesn't God miraculously give all Christians the ability to read Greek and Hebrew?" or "Why do we need the written Word of God when God could have just revealed everything to us directly and avoided all of this confusion?"

God did it the way He saw fit... which included providentially preserving over 5000 mss that all vary with each other and giving men at various times and places the wisdom and understanding to accurately translate the Bible.

Yes but Ruckman, Gipp, et al. are not. Where does the Word of God teach KJVOnlyism? IT DOESN'T. Pastor Larry has proven on several occasions that the Bible contradicts KJVOnlyism.

BTW, perfect has numerous meanings. The only one applicable to a translation is "having all that is requisite to its nature and kind." The KJV is not lacking nor is the NKJV nor is the NASB nor is the WEB...

If you or any of your heroes can demonstrate that an MV is missing a doctrine included in the originals then you will have finally made your case. But I am confident that you cannot or else you would have long before now.