Bible debate

[HeirofSalvation]

The NASB has Acts 8:37.

It does....therefore I have far less problem with NASB than I do with others....Many people here seem to find the NASB un-gainly...so they don't like it. I actually do like it.

however: unless I am mistaken (I may be)..there is likely a footnote which casts doubt upon the passage. If not, then I have little complaint about NASB.....
I've always thought rather highly of it....It wasn't well-done (in the sense of accuracy vs. readability) on some levels, but, I am partial to NASB... I was raised with the NASB...NOT the KJV.

However, I have NO appreciation for a Translation which has a footnote which casts doubt upon the Validity of Acts 8:37...Truth is...NASB was translated not from the T.R....

This is an issue worthy of investigation to me.....
Thank you for your imput Amy

 

[psalms109:31]

The NASB has Acts 8:37.

This is why the index is a good study tool to use while studying the scriptures. I always find good information in there no matter what translation I'm studying. in which I to do not like footnote that cast doubt on this verse either

 

[Amy.G]

However, I have NO appreciation for a Translation which has a footnote which casts doubt upon the Validity of Acts 8:37...Truth is...NASB was translated not from the T.R....

I'm not arguing but just want to get to the truth.
In my KJV which I purchased from R.L. Allan publishers in Scottland (I'll try not to brag :laugh the same footnote appears in the margin for Acts 8:37, "not in the oldest manuscripts".

So some KJV's do have the same footnotes as the MV's.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yes..There IS A footnote

It does....therefore I have far less problem with NASB than I do with others....Many people here seem to find the NASB un-gainly...so they don't like it. I actually do like it.

however: unless I am mistaken (I may be)..there is likely a footnote which casts doubt upon the passage. If not, then I have little complaint about NASB.....
I've always thought rather highly of it....It wasn't well-done (in the sense of accuracy vs. readability) on some levels, but, I am partial to NASB... I was raised with the NASB...NOT the KJV.

However, I have NO appreciation for a Translation which has a footnote which casts doubt upon the Validity of Acts 8:37...Truth is...NASB was translated not from the T.R....

This is an issue worthy of investigation to me.....
Thank you for your imput Amy

HoS...Yes brother...there is one of those footnotes and it says that the verse (Acts 8:37) is NOT found in the oldest or earliest manuscripts (supposedly). That kind of kills the authority of the verse if you believe the footnote. I guess that would make anybody who rejects baptism by immersion pretty happy. That's just another reason to remember that footnotes like that are just "scholarly" OPINIONS.

By the way brother, I have been following your good comments in this thread and appreciate them and you. If you'd like to do any other reading on the KJV OR the Textual Issues I would highly recommend ANY of the following authors....Dr.D.A.Waite of Collingsworth NJ, Edward Hills, David Otis Fuller, Pastor James W.Knox of Deland FL, or Dr.Douglas D. Stauffer. You can probably find much of their stuff on Amazon or by Googling them. I'll post the following link to Dr. Waite's site (Bible For Today). It has a wealth of resource material on the textual issues. Happy hunting!:laugh:
Here is the link:The Bible For Today HomePage

God Bless You Brother,
Bro.Greg:saint: (P.S. I finished Aresman's excellent book on tithing and passed it on to a preacher friend of mine to read. Great Book...Thanks for sharing! GP

 

[go2church]

The KJV wasn't the best English translation when it came out in 1611, certainly nothing has changed in over 400 years even though it has been revised numerous times.

 

[JimmyH]

Regarding Philip and the eunuch in Acts chapter 8 ......

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

That may be fine for an individual who wants to make the effort to learn to read and understand KJV English, but for many of the people who need to hear the Gospel it is a stretch.

OTOH, .....30 Philip ran over and heard the man reading from the prophet Isaiah. Philip asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

31 The man replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” And he urged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him.

The Holy Spirit enlightened the eyes of my understanding through a Schofield KJV when I was 36 years old. Not everyone will be so blessed to be able to read and persevere to understand KJV English.

Translations in the modern vernacular may be a better way to bring some lost souls to the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.

 

[saturneptune]

I would be interested in knowing for those who are open minded enough to consider other versions besides the KJV, (including the Acts 8:37 and leaving your spouse issue) you would consider the best translation? I use the NKJV to follow Scripture in church and study the NIV.

 

[humblethinker]

HoS, I understand where you are coming from. I do think that some of the things you said are significantly inaccurate and therefore may give you a false sense of comfort/security. I don't really have time to invest in the conversation at the level that I would really need to right now but if you get around to reading yet another anti-kjvo book I'd encourage you to get the one I referred to earlier in this thread. I have probably read the other books you have and I haven't quite found another book like this one. It was the one that convinced me. The author actually is pretty active on this board so I imagine that he would be accessible for direct conversation if you so desired. HoS, on matters like this one and free will etc, I feel that it is a matter of intellectual integrity that I avail myself to the best arguments available. That is, if I'm going to come to a decision on a matter then I want to do so with the confidence that the best possible argument did not convince me. I DON'T want to have a sense of security only to find out later that I had not actually heard the best argument, and what would be worse is that I had come to a settled opinion based on a straw man or misunderstanding. For me, The Unbound Scriptures was that best argument, and it convinced me.

Personally I prefer the eclectic/critical NA text over the MT and the MT over the TR. (that is, translations based on it, since I don't read Koine). Funny story... When I was investigating the KJVO issue back in 2010, I knew a professor who was KJVO and so I asked to talk with him about this issue. He is definitely KJVO but instead of using/carrying a KJV English Bible at church he uses his original language Bible instead! And even funnier is that it was NA27 and NOT the TR, or even the MT! I asked him why and he said that NA27 is just better.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Okee-dokey

The KJV wasn't the best English translation when it came out in 1611, certainly nothing has changed in over 400 years even though it has been revised numerous times.

Funny how God has obviously blessed the KJV and its use and fruit (souls won and lives forever changed!) inspite of it's detractors over the years. I guess He just has His own AGENDA! (Bless His Holy Name!:applause

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'm not arguing but just want to get to the truth.
In my KJV which I purchased from R.L. Allan publishers in Scottland (I'll try not to brag :laugh the same footnote appears in the margin for Acts 8:37, "not in the oldest manuscripts".

So some KJV's do have the same footnotes as the MV's.

WOW !! so it do! I've never noticed such a footnote in a KJV...Just checked my Scofield Reference Bible, and it does as well........However, referencing My 1631 kjv Purchased in London for 600pounds (here I AM bragging ) There is no footnote.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HoS, I understand where you are coming from. I do think that some of the things you said are significantly inaccurate and therefore may give you a false sense of comfort/security. I don't really have time to invest in the conversation at the level that I would really need to right now but if you get around to reading yet another anti-kjvo book I'd encourage you to get the one I referred to earlier in this thread. I have probably read the other books you have and I haven't quite found another book like this one. It was the one that convinced me. The author actually is pretty active on this board so I imagine that he would be accessible for direct conversation if you so desired. HoS, on matters like this one and free will etc, I feel that it is a matter of intellectual integrity that I avail myself to the best arguments available. That is, if I'm going to come to a decision on a matter then I want to do so with the confidence that the best possible argument did not convince me. I DON'T want to have a sense of security only to find out later that I had not actually heard the best argument, and what would be worse is that I had come to a settled opinion based on a straw man or misunderstanding. For me, The Unbound Scriptures was that best argument, and it convinced me.

Personally I prefer the eclectic/critical NA text over the MT and the MT over the TR. (that is, translations based on it, since I don't read Koine). Funny story... When I was investigating the KJVO issue back in 2010, I knew a professor who was KJVO and so I asked to talk with him about this issue. He is definitely KJVO but instead of using/carrying a KJV English Bible at church he uses his original language Bible instead! And even funnier is that it was NA27 and NOT the TR, or even the MT! I asked him why and he said that NA27 is just better.

Thanks HT :wavey:...I'll definitely check that book out. So far, I've never found an anti-kjv book to be very convincing. I haven't read that one though.

 

[Amy.G]

.......However, referencing My 1631 kjv Purchased in London for 600pounds (here I AM bragging ) There is no footnote.

:tongue3: Well nah nah na boo boo!

:laugh:

:1_grouphug:

 

[salzer mtn]

I have always read from a KJV but since reading this thread i thumb through the NIV version. I looked at the scripture St. John 3:16 and in the KJV it say's, should not perish but in the NIV it say's, shall not perish. I believe in the eternal security of the saved but the word shall not is stronger than the word should not for my belief. So which translation is right ? Also are we to pick a translation just to fit our beliefs ?

 

[humblethinker]

I have always read from a KJV but since reading this thread i thumb through the NIV version. I looked at the scripture St. John 3:16 and in the KJV it say's, should not perish but in the NIV it say's, shall not perish. I believe in the eternal security of the saved but the word shall not is stronger than the word should not for my belief. So which translation is right ? Also are we to pick a translation just to fit our beliefs ?

salzer, I would say that if you are happy with the kjv and it works for you then it is a justifiable and reasonable position decide to keep using it. We can all have our preferences as to which version is best. My problem is with an attitude that INSISTS that other people share this specific preference. I don't think that HoS has such an attitude and I respect him for that. As much as we can, we should get comfortable with change and being and staying in relationship with people whom we may have disagreements. Imo, there is plenty of scripture in any of the faithfully translated versions to keep Christians very busy at becoming like Jesus for the rest of their lives. This issue doesn't warrant being distracted from that objective nor does it warrant dividing a community of believers who have covenanted together to be in process toward becoming like Jesus.

So, believe in OSAS because the entirety of scripture gives credence to that. Don't let your confidence in OSAS be threatened because of translation, usage and grammar issues in other versions.

 

[psalms109:31]

I do not believe any unbeliever should have any confidence in their salvation even if they believed once in their life. We are told to encourage each other to believe not to convinced them it is OK to not believe. I wish they could put shall will and should there to continue as only a believer should have confidence not an unbeliever if they let Satan steal the seed or trials and tribulations choke it out.

Where did the newer manuscripts get Acts 8:37 did they make it up or is there older manuscripts that no longer exist?

 

[Baptist4life]

I do not believe any unbeliever should have any confidence in their salvation even if they believed once in their life. We are told to encourage each other to believe not to convinced them it is OK to not believe. I wish they could put shall will and should there to continue as only a believer should have confidence not an unbeliever if they let Satan steal the seed or trials and tribulations choke it out.

^^^^ Sounds like "works" salvation.

 

[psalms109:31]

Hebrew 3:
12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Do you really believe trusting in the finished work of Jesus and what He has done and rest in Him is a work. The scripture says no only men make it a work.

 

[humblethinker]

Hebrew 3:
12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Do you really believe trusting in the finished work of Jesus and what He has done and rest in Him is a work. The scripture says no only men make it a work.

Hey psalms109, can you make a new thread to discuss this?

 

[psalms109:31]

Hey psalms109, can you make a new thread to discuss this?

I am sorry I love OASAS for a believer, but not for someone who does not care about.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

That Just Not Right!

WOW !! so it do! I've never noticed such a footnote in a KJV...Just checked my Scofield Reference Bible, and it does as well........However, referencing My 1631 kjv Purchased in London for 600pounds (here I AM bragging ) There is no footnote.

Yeah Brother...you are bragging and now I'm full of jealous envy and need to go confess!:smilewinkgrin: But I bet you're glad that's over with...carrying around 600 pounds would make me tired!

Just to mention....just need to remember that neither the footnotes nor Dr. Scofield's notes nor any other study Bible's notes are part of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved text of the Word of God. They can be helpful (or not)!

I'd love to SEE that 1631 you have. Is it an "original" or 1st edition for that year or just a reproduction? By the way...check out this link:
Treasuring the Word Mininistries International This is a link to a Bible Museum that is located in Sevierville TN just outside of Gatlinburg. It is well work going to see if you are in the area. My wife and I have been and he has a collection of very old Bibles which are fascinating. The man that runs it, Bro.Mike Grant, is a BJU grad and a very nice guy. Check out his website. I love old Bibles and Hymnbooks.

Bro.Greg:saint: