Baptists who stand up

[Yeshua1]

It's a total non-answer and you know it.

Tell me, should the last 12 verses of Mark be there or not? It's a simple Yes or No question, please answer.

Truth is, those who claim the word of God is preserved in all versions do not really believe it is preserved at all. It is you that cannot take any stand.

Take a stand, should the last 12 verses of Mark be there or not?

God inerrancy applied ONLY to the original manuscripts/books!

He has indeed preserved those into the original language texts that we today base English versions upon...

So we do indeed have infallible versions for us now, for though ALL of them still have some textual variant mistakes, scribal glossong errors, copying mistakes, still can be seen as infallible word of God!

the originals were perfect, NO translation is today!

And to your mark question...

Believe that he originally wrote the gospel with the shoertened ending, but early on, thescribes/copiers decided to "smooth it over" and incoprated the longer ending, as that longer ending was based upon known deeds/works of the Apsotles in time of acts!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

My Big Problem Is....

The Big Problem I have with the results of this poll is that I have always believed that a basic belief that "The Bible Is God's Word" is necessary to even come to the place WHERE ONE CAN BE SAVED. If a person does NOT believe that the Bible IS God's Word, how then can he/she EVER believe the truths contained therein? "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing BY the word of God"(Romans 10:17) Where does that leave the 3 posters (whomever they may be...I don't know and I'm not sure I want to)that voted for option #1 in this poll? Can you believe that God's Word doesn't EXIST today and really be saved?....and like Amy said....if this is true then what use are our Bibles (any version) if we can't depend on them being true? I know we aren't supposed to question the salvation of others on here and I don't come to this question easily...it is painful....but these are legitimate questions that must be faced. I don't ask these questions maliciously...but with genuine compassion. WE ARE...as Christians...dependent (as God intended us to be) on that blessed Book and His Holy Spirit as our guides. That BOOK is the instrument that God,the Holy Spirit, uses to lead, guide and instruct us as we find our way not ONLY to His initial salvation but then also over the course of the path of life that we must follow until we go to meet our Lord. It CANNOT be dismissed or taken lightly. It is terribly troubling that on a Baptist Forum there are those in our company that don't believe this. We need to pray that God will remove the blinders from their hearts and their eyes. I cannot apologize for telling the truth. I have just prayed for youraying: and I hope others will as well.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Amy.G]

go ask a Hebrew scholar if what he reads in Torah is verbatim to what you read. Personally dont know if we have any here. Speak up if your out there.

It should be. In the original Hebrew and Aramaic that is. But when those languages are translated to English there will be some differences as it's impossible to translate from one language to another word for word.

But regardless, the Bible is still God's word even when translated to languages different from the originals.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

We Have It

It should be. In the original Hebrew and Aramaic that is. But when those languages are translated to English there will be some differences as it's impossible to translate from one language to another word for word.

But regardless, the Bible is still God's word even when translated to languages different from the originals.

Let God Be True....and every man a liar!

We HAVE God's Word IN OUR LANGUAGE as He would have us to have it in our day. IF....and I do say IF...ONLY the Original Hebrew and Greek Autographs were the ONLY truly pure,inspired,inerrant, and preserved Words of God then He would have made sure that they were preserved for us in their entirety and that we would be able to speak,read, and understand them in our day. The actual "Originals" no longer exist. I personally believe that is because God knows our propensity to "worship" objects and relics (note the practices of the Catholics and other pagan religions). That said, I believe that God has transmitted His Word down through the ages and PRESERVED IT as it has "of necessity" been translated from the Original languages of the Autographs into the many other languages that exist. This huge focus we seem to have on translating His Word into an ever-increasing multiplicity of English translations when the true need is, in fact, making sure that it is made available in languages that, as yet, do NOT have a working copy of God's Word to read.....is nothing but a distraction and a shame. WE have the Word of God IN ENGLISH! We need to make sure those of other languages have it now. We don't need anymore English translations. The devil is laughing while some people groups around the world today are STARVING for God's Word. OK...I'm done ranting!....for now:thumbs:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Rippon]

Actually, I am quite aware that many languages do not have a version of scripture based on the same text as the KJB. To that I would say I am glad they have some form of scripture, although I would agree that they are not "accurate".

So your contention is that any Bible version based on the TR is automatically accurate?! How silly.

 

[Rippon]

OK, you head-shakers, should the scriptures include the last 12 verses of Mark or not?

No,but most do anyway even if the print may be smaller than the regular type or enclosed in brackets. Including those last 12 "verses" is just a concession to tradition.

 

[Rippon]

And I am not lying when I say the King James is the preserved word of God in English, I believe that by faith, YOU DO NOT.

The Lord has not told you that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English,and the KJV has not communicated that to you either.

It is not a faith thing at all. You have swallowed a man-made idol.

 

[Rippon]

So we do indeed have infallible versions for us now...

Say what? Our Bible versions are not infallible. Only the original autographs are.

 

[Yeshua1]

Say what? Our Bible versions are not infallible. Only the original autographs are.

no, the original manuscripts/books were totally Inerrant, as everything recorded down was inspired/preserved by the Holy spirit as revelation of God, NO mistakes/errors in ANYTHING that was written down, regardless faith/history etc!

the Lord preserve to us in the original languages greek/hebrew texts used today for translation essentially close enough to inerrant originals that we have today in the various translation an infallible bible, which means that apart from known scribal additions/glosses, problems with correct OT numbers, still have an accurate and trustworthy account from God, so still infallible in all doctrines/practices, only authority to us today!

just be careful with difference between concepts of inerrancy/infallibility, as our KJVO bethren exchange them as being same!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

ONLY silly if....

So your contention is that any Bible version based on the TR is automatically accurate?! How silly.

I think I know what you are getting at.....there certainly CAN be BAD translations ....even from the TR. Just because one uses the TR as their "base" for translation DOES NOT guarantee the quality or accuracy of the translation....That IS TRUE.
I will even go a step further...(remember...you are hearing THIS from a KJV guy:smilewinkgrin... and say that there are GOOD and accurate translations of the CT or W&H texts. Imagine that...ME saying that!:laugh:
BUT....I still reject the CT or W&H based translations in favor of any good and accurate TR based translations (in ANY language) because I don't believe (based on the Manuscript Evidence that I regard as true)that they (the CT OR the W&H manuscripts) are as good or more accurate. If the roots are bad...the tree will follow suit.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Winman]

God inerrancy applied ONLY to the original manuscripts/books!

He has indeed preserved those into the original language texts that we today base English versions upon...

So we do indeed have infallible versions for us now, for though ALL of them still have some textual variant mistakes, scribal glossong errors, copying mistakes, still can be seen as infallible word of God!

the originals were perfect, NO translation is today!

And to your mark question...

Believe that he originally wrote the gospel with the shoertened ending, but early on, thescribes/copiers decided to "smooth it over" and incoprated the longer ending, as that longer ending was based upon known deeds/works of the Apsotles in time of acts!

What a load of bull. The original scriptures are long gone. In fact, in Jesus's day no one had the original scriptures written down by the prophets, they had deteriorated from use centuries before. The Jews and the church have always relied on copies of the originals, so unless copies are preserved then no one has infallible scriptures.

It has always been about 2 lines of scriptures, the Critical Text and the Received Text. Either one is correct or both are wrong, but both cannot be correct.

I will ask any person here, should the last 12 verses of Mark be there or not? Take a stand and give your answer.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Sp What You are saying is....

no, the original manuscripts/books were totally Inerrant, as everything recorded down was inspired/preserved by the Holy spirit as revelation of God, NO mistakes/errors in ANYTHING that was written down, regardless faith/history etc!

the Lord preserve to us in the original languages greek/hebrew texts used today for translation essentially close enough to inerrant originals that we have today in the various translation an infallible bible, which means that apart from known scribal additions/glosses, problems with correct OT numbers, still have an accurate and trustworthy account from God, so still infallible in all doctrines/practices, only authority to us today!

just be careful with difference between concepts of inerrancy/infallibility, as our KJVO bethren exchange them as being same!

So if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are basically saying that God inspired perfect, inerrant Originals that were the "Original Autographs" and they were indeed PERFECT and without error of any kind....AT THAT TIME. I agree and I'm sure most would.
Past that...what I get from what you and others are saying is that once those Perfect Originals were finished, that God basically left the entire process of the TRANSMISSION and "preservation" of His Holy Perfect Word to the whims and ways of fallible and sinful men and chose to "wink" at their treatment of His Word and ignore the imperfections and corruptions that they introduced to the text of His once-Perfect, Inspired, Infallible, Inerrant Word....right? NOPE. I ain't buyin' it. I never have since I found out just what is TRULY at stake in this sin-cursed, hell-deserving world we live in. There are some "supernatural" things that God accomplishes that our finite, natural minds will never be able to adequately explain with even our best supposedly well-informed theories. How He provides us with a PERFECT Bible (inspite of our best efforts to think that we don't necessarily need one) may be a mystery to some until they stand before Him. I just accept it as true without question....by FAITH. He and His Word are Perfect. It is not possible to seperate the Two. Faith is not a difficult concept to embrace when you believe that. That is where I stand...and where I will stay.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Winman]

Did you take a look at WHY I posted that comment?

It was in reference to the word HATE inconjunction with Bible preference. And, a far reaching condemnation that extends back in time for 400+ years. In his zeal to condem those who support only the use of the KJB, the poster seems to have forgotten that was the KJB Bible, in large part, the one that took the word of God to the world with the expansion of the British empire. Especially in the 1800's.

If I understand correctly, this Bible version was primarily during the periods of great revival across the lands. And is still in use throughout the world both in English and in translations based upon it. Thus, IMO, it is not valid to make this statement: "you just condemned the only Bibles that believers in the rest of the world use".

Further, the poster presumed that others don't know or understand the controvery that surrounds the KJB. "which would be a complete shock to them." Really?

Lastly, when I read the last sentence, echo's of the past crept into my awareness. John Wycliffe's bones came to mind. I can imagine similar statements being made when opposition to the Catholic church arose. Wonder how many have died and are still dying for upholding the freedom to read the Bible version of choice without "hate" being rained upon them?

In closing, Winman, for the record, my CHOICE of Bibles is the King James Bible. And, FWIW, this thread, and the one where my choice to use the adjective "any" (in a Baptists only forum) turned into an "is" debate are examples of why I've almost stopped coming to this particular forum. Seem's I can't learn my lesson. :BangHead:

Mark 12: KJB
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

I owe you an apology, I thought you were ridiculing me because I am King James ONLY. I do not apologize for that.

I simply believe that God has preserved his word as he promised many times in scripture. There are two lines to choose from,- the Critical or Received Text. I believe the Received Text is the preserved line of scripture. I cannot prove this, I believe it by faith.

 

[Winman]

So if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are basically saying that God inspired perfect, inerrant Originals that were the "Original Autographs" and they were indeed PERFECT and without error of any kind....AT THAT TIME. I agree and I'm sure most would.
Past that...what I get from what you and others are saying is that once those Perfect Originals were finished, that God basically left the entire process of the TRANSMISSION and "preservation" of His Holy Perfect Word to the whims and ways of fallible and sinful men and chose to "wink" at their treatment of His Word and ignore the imperfections and corruptions that they introduced to the text of His once-Perfect, Inspired, Infallible, Inerrant Word....right? NOPE. I ain't buyin' it. I never have since I found out just what is TRULY at stake in this sin-cursed, hell-deserving world we live in. There are some "supernatural" things that God accomplishes that our finite, natural minds will never be able to adequately explain with even our best supposedly well-informed theories. How He provides us with a PERFECT Bible (inspite of our best efforts to think that we don't necessarily need one) may be a mystery to some until they stand before Him. I just accept it as true without question....by FAITH. He and His Word are Perfect. It is not possible to seperate the Two. Faith is not a difficult concept to embrace when you believe that. That is where I stand...and where I will stay.

Bro.Greg:saint:

Yep, that's what they say. They don't believe in preservation whatsoever.

And you are absolutely correct, it is a matter of faith, which they do not have, yet they mock those who believe.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

My Stand..

What a load of bull. The original scriptures are long gone. In fact, in Jesus's day no one had the original scriptures written down by the prophets, they had deteriorated from use centuries before. The Jews and the church have always relied on copies of the originals, so unless copies are preserved then no one has infallible scriptures.

It has always been about 2 lines of scriptures, the Critical Text and the Received Text. Either one is correct or both are wrong, but both cannot be correct.

I will ask any person here, should the last 12 verses of Mark be there or not? Take a stand and give your answer.

My stand is YES...they should be there. They were in the TR and that is the correct family of Manuscripts. They WERE NOT just some creative addition to the text that were placed there by some group of "translators". That they weren't included in the CT (if I have my information correct) is just more good reason for me to reject the CT as being "the BEST and oldest ancient manuscripts" as some of the textual footnotes are so fond of saying. I'm with ya Winman.:thumbs:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Greektim]

My stand is YES...they should be there. They were in the TR and that is the correct family of Manuscripts. They WERE NOT just some creative addition to the text that were placed there by some group of "translators". That they weren't included in the CT (if I have my information correct) is just more good reason for me to reject the CT as being "the BEST and oldest ancient manuscripts" as some of the textual footnotes are so fond of saying. I'm with ya Winman.:thumbs:

Bro.Greg:saint:

TR is not a "family of Manuscripts" and certainly not correct (not in many places at least).

By your logic, the NKJV then has replaced the KJV since it is based on the TR and it is for this generation of believers who speak English.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I'll Acknowledge....

TR is not a "family of Manuscripts" and certainly not correct (not in many places at least).

By your logic, the NKJV then has replaced the KJV since it is based on the TR and it is for this generation of believers who speak English.

OK...a "part" of a family of manuscripts if you please....if that would make you happier (though I doubt it). As to MY logic...nope...not true. Also...if you do a comparative reading between the KJV and the NKJV I have seen it demonstrated in Dr.Douglas D.Stauffer's writings BibleDoug.com that the wording in the NKJV in some places more clearly follows the CT than the TR. I know (the NKJV team) "say" that their work was based on exclusively the TR...but...there may be a "fox in the henhouse".

What I will acknowledge is your right to your opinion as to what is or is not correct...however..."things that are different are NOT the same!" I respectfully disagree with your position.:type:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Yeshua1]

TR is not a "family of Manuscripts" and certainly not correct (not in many places at least).

By your logic, the NKJV then has replaced the KJV since it is based on the TR and it is for this generation of believers who speak English.

No, for though the translation came from SAME Greek source as the KJV, the NKJV translating team did not have the inpiration to translate granted the KJV team!

 

[Revmitchell]

No, for though the translation came from SAME Greek source as the KJV, the NKJV translating team did not have the inpiration to translate granted the KJV team!

How do you know that?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yep, that's what they say. They don't believe in preservation whatsoever.

And you are absolutely correct, it is a matter of faith, which they do not have, yet they mock those who believe.

No, we DO indeed hold to preservation by the Lord, its in the original language texts that we have today, as essential exact copies of the originals!

So ANY english version correctly translated off them are thesure word of god to us, kjv/nkjv/nasb/niv etc!

and the KJVO camp misunderstands just what inpieration/revelation/inerrancy/infallibility mean...

ONLY the originals were inerrant/inspired revelations from/of God, while modern texts/versions off thm are infallible!