Some People Just Want a Bible

Maybe you should tell them, the mv's started the arguement and we KJB belivers just keep proclaiming it. We didn't "attack" the mv's, we were attacked. So maybe some one needs to tell the truth, but first the truth must be known; the KJB is attacked and everyone who stands on it. We stand in defence of the Word of God and shall not be moved. I'm just waiting now for the next attack an mv will make.

 

If anyone was told this, they'd be told a lie. The KJV doesn't get attacked...MVs do.

But you make a good point. Here in America, we're spiritually spoiled rotten. We have the luxury of arguing over which leather cover we want, what kind of study notes, what size print, etc. Meanwhile, our brothers and sisters all over the world would love to have their own copy of God's Word. Judgement day will not be fun for the factious, IMHO

 

The KJVOs started the argument and the KJVOs continue it. This board would die out in a hurry if the KJVOs didn't keep it up.

How does calling something perverted and satanic and corrupted not an attack?? That is a strange definition to say the least.

We have. Some people aren't listening however.

The next one will be the first one. You talk about telling the truth and then have the audacity to say that the KJV is attacked. Where?? Who here has attacked the KJV?? How is that telling the truth?

The reality it is a shame that there are arguments over which version to use. It is just a sign that the church is being split over needless and non-biblical issues.

[ June 22, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Larry, my text for tonight includes Titus 3:9-11. I wonder if the version issue applies?

 

Larry, my text for tonight includes Titus 3:9-11. I wonder if the version issue applies?

</font>[/QUOTE]I think absolutely it does. This translation stuff is simply a foolish controversy (in the words of the text). It is unprofitable and worthless. It causes confusion and division in the body.

I will be at that text in a few weeks. I was on Titus 2:9-10 this morning. Fortunately when I get to that text, the Bible version issue won't be a big point of application because my church doesn't know much about it. They are growing and learning the word of God and the Bible version issue never even comes up unless I bring it up. Of course, by using the NASB, no "Bible version troublemakers" come to my church. That alone is a good reason to use it. The people who come who use the KJV (and we have some) understand the issues and understand that their use of the KJV is a preference for them, not a mandate for the church.

 

I have been reading a bit the last days in David W Cloud's book For Love of the Bible. While I do not agree with him on all things he states in this book or in general I must say he has very well shown that there was some kind of battle over the Bible already in the early 1800's. There were forces that wanted to introduce a new and revised Greek text and a new common Bible version. Many were they that were against such an endeavour. And their reasons and arguments were not stupid. I do not think all those that defended the TR and the KJV against some new text and version were fools or misled by the devil. So this kind of battle for the primacy of the KJV and the TR is no new thing in history. I think many could profit more or less from reading Cloud's book.

Another thing which he well proves is how that the main editors of the new Greek editions have all been manifest heretics, men such as Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, Westcott and Hort etc. So what can be said is that manifestly unregenerate and apostate infidels are behind the modern Greek texts. This would explain much as to why so many glorious Scripture portions are ripped out of these GNT editions. Some of these are reportedly such who have denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. That would explain the gnostic sounding readings in modern Greek texts, e.g. John 1:18 "only begotten God" instead of "only begotten Son".

Harald

 

I can understand that they would be glad to have ANY version, but shouldn't those that prepare and make a bible available try to ensure that the translation is an honest one?
As far as being in the U.S. and having multiple copies, styles, and version available, it only shows, IMO, that we have more of an opportunity to choose wisely, and a better chance of being deceived if we do not exercise caution.
Gina

 

Yes, Cloud thinks a great many people are heretics. Yawn. A shorter list would be people he thinks are NOT heretics.

Actually, manuscript evidence explains that reading. Which part troubles you the most, saying Christ was "begotten", or saying Christ was "God"?

 

The KJVOs started the argument and the KJVOs continue it. This board would die out in a hurry if the KJVOs didn't keep it up.

How does calling something perverted and satanic and corrupted not an attack?? That is a strange definition to say the least.

We have. Some people aren't listening however.

The next one will be the first one. You talk about telling the truth and then have the audacity to say that the KJV is attacked. Where?? Who here has attacked the KJV?? How is that telling the truth?

The reality it is a shame that there are arguments over which version to use. It is just a sign that the church is being split over needless and non-biblical issues. </font>[/QUOTE]TOUCHE'

 

Neither.What troubles me is people justifying "bibles" that claim there was an unbeggoten God and an beggoten God;i.e.two seperate Gods!!

 

Does the KJV say the Father is God? Yes. Does the KJV say the Son is God? Yes. Do you think the KJV therefore claims there are two Gods? No. Consistency, my friend - it will add validity to your arguments.

 

1 John 5:7 in my Bible testifies about the God who is three yet also one. The word for one is in neuter in the Greek, which seems to refer to substance or essence, not so much to personhood. This means that each of the three persons in the Triune Godhead are of one and the same essence. This refutes the heresy of a begotten God and an unbegotten God, because these two fictious gods are of different essence, one is begotten and the other unbegotten. Christ Jesus is the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God. Only begotten refers to His eternal Sonship rather than to His absolute Deity. God absolutely considered is not begotten. John 1:18 in the critical editions smacks of gnosticism or whatever ancient heresy it was that called Christ a begotten God. Why should I tolerate such devilry?

If I want to prove or be informed concerning the essential and absolute deity of God the Son I can turn to verses that clearly bespeak this truth, such as 1 Timothy 3:16 - "God was manifested in flesh.." and John 1:1 etc. etc. glorious passages given by divine inspiration.


Harald

 

The phrase does *not* say that Christ's Godhead started when he was begotten, you are trying to thrust that on the text and then argue against it based on that - in other words, a strawman. Christ was God, and Christ was begotten. Yes, one *interpretation* of the phrase "begotten God" is wrong (and that interpretation cannot exist if one considers the context, especially verse 1), but another interpretation is entirely orthodox. You can't dismiss a phrase simply because someone else interprets it in a way that goes against orthodoxy. If that were the case, the Mormons would have rendered the KJV useless years ago.

Amen. But when I talk to my Mormon friend, he hates when I use Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in the NIV. He much prefers the KJV's rendering of these verses.

 

Even a Mormon knows whats right! Amazing! Someone has dropped the ball

 

QUOTE:
"The phrase does *not* say that Christ's Godhead started when he was begotten,"

The term "only begotten" when speaking of God the Son incarnate, Jesus Christ, has reference to His eternal divine Sonship, therefore one cannot use a "when" in connection with it. Because He is eternally the only begotten Son of God. The "when" -view of only begottenness in connection with God's Son is called the heresy of incarnational sonship. There was never a moment when Christ Jesus has not been the only begotten Son of God. The person who became incarnate was the Son of God, the only begotten Son who is eternally in the Father's bosom. The eternal only begotten divine Son of God came forth from the bosom of His Father, and in time assumed flesh through the supernatural virgin birth. From that point He has concretely been also the Son of Man, which phrase means the divine Son possessed of true humanity apart from sin. The Bible does not support the heresy of incarnational sonship as far as I can discern. I hope you was not propagating this thing by what you said.

Harald

 

Not at all. In fact, that is sort of my point! If you agree "begotten Son" does not mean his Sonship started when he was begotten, then why are you trying to make "begotten God" mean his Godship started when he was begotten?!?

 

Is is really disapointing that there are so many people in other countries that do not have a Bible.

It makes me wonder how many people could be led to the Lord by just a simple Bible distribution programme.

I have heard cases of people studying pages form hymn books because that is all that is available.

I think that most versions of the Bible are fine for missions overseas. There would not be any real advantage in sending over heavily paraphrased versions in English. If an Engish translation was needed, I would suggest the NKJV, NIV, or NASB, yet I am sure there are others that would be good to.

I think that it is important to supply the Bible in the indiginous langauge of the people. Australian Missionaries are seeing great response in Papua New Guinea from tribes who are given bibles translated into there own language.

 

Studying from hymn books? WOW That puts a whole new spin on how many people don't take the theology of hymns very seriously! I'd never thought of that. Where have you heard of this happening?
Gina