"Christendom....we have a problem"

tinytim · Jun 13, 2008

stilllearning said:
But when you mess with the Bible, it changes everything!

See you later

Then why did Jesus misquote the Masoretic text?

nunatak · Jun 13, 2008

stilllearning said:
In these last days, we are seeing a lot of new ideas, in the area of ministry: E.G. Video presentations, Power point presentations, You tube videos, sites like this etc.. And although there is nothing wrong with these tools, there is "something wrong". Because during this same period of time, the Church's mission is failing. (i.e. People's lives aren't being changed). Therefore, we must be doing something wrong.

I was born and raised in heresy that today I would call anathema. God miraculously brought myself, my wife, and my three kids out of oneness pentecostalism last year. I had never heard of Justification. Never heard of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Never knew the gospel was encapsulated in 1Cor15. I am 41 this year, and the Lord brought me out of darkness. And I have been born again for 1 year! I haven't even been baptized properly yet!

Before I continue, let me explain how we can tell, that people's lives, aren't being changed. It all has to do with, a lack of true repentance. Some Churches may be full, but the people's hearts are empty; And the reason we know this, is because of all the open sin in their lives. When Jesus is changing people, they are going to be dealing with their sin. And when people are dealing with their sins, pornography and alcohol sales, start dropping off. -This isn't happening.-

People's lives are changed when they place their faith in Christ alone for salvation. How do you quantify faith? You can't. There may be weak anemic churches. But to say all are is false.

Now back to my main point; i.e. "The question is, how we can have all the latest technology at our disposal, and yet our message seems to be powerless to really change people's lives?" The source to this problem, has to do with a lack of power. How can we be preaching, "the right message", yet see that same message, powerless to change people's lives?

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The right message is the gospel of Jesus Christ! And this is that Christ died according to the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And! This Message, this Gospel, is the Power of God unto salvation to every one who believes.

The answer to this question, boils down to "words". We may have "the right message" but are we using the right words to convey it? There is a doctrine, that all true believers accept, but many misunderstand it. That is, the doctrine of "verbal inspiration". We all agree on what "inspiration" means: (i.e. "God breathed") but what about that word, "verbal"? The word verbal, means "using words". God gave us our Bible, using "words", and not simply ideas. Therefore, the true power of God's message, lies in His Words, and not just in His message.

This is the whole issue with the King James Version, of the Bible. These who translated the King James, believed that the words were important, therefore they translated the original languages into English, word for word(as close as it could be). But the philosophy behind "every other English translation", is that "words aren't important, but the ideas are;" This is why they feel free to change the words, any way they choose. (Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

But something else has happened. When the words are changed, the power of the words is taken away.

Today, most ministers, are trying to get God's message out to the world and the Church; But they are overlooking a vital component, to God's message. We must use "God's Words", to get God's message across, with power.

God's powerful message is,
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

and not,

"For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life."

Note: When you change the words, you rob the message, of God's power!

I believe that any version or translation of the Scriptures that testifies to the basic fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, is acceptable to be used for instruction, reproof, and teaching about righteousness. You may only think the KJV is acceptable, and that is okay, but don't hold me to your standard for yourself.

stilllearning · Jun 13, 2008

Hi rbell

Well rbell, I wasn’t around in 1612, but as for seeing God move, I do.

In every Church that is rightly dividing the Word of Truth, God is moving, and people are Really being conformed to His image.

But in every Church, where the emphasis is being taken off of His Word, God is not moving. Things may be happening; Their may be a lot of noise; Light may be flashing; and people may be getting excited. But God is not moving. Just people are.

And the way that we know this, is how these same excited people are, when they go home or got to work or school. They are just as wicked and worldly, as the unchurched.

I have “personally” come to the conclusion, that Churches that are getting away from the KJV, are taking their emphasis, off of God’s Word.

God only moves among us, when we honor His Word!

nunatak · Jun 14, 2008

stilllearning said:
I have “personally” come to the conclusion, that Churches that are getting away from the KJV, are taking their emphasis, off of God’s Word.

God only moves among us, when we honor His Word!

I trust by your handle you at least have an open mind to exploring new ideas about these issues. The concern I have here is conforming God and his Word to your opinion. In other words, you have placed God in a box of your devising. This is something we all do. But God can not be limited, not by your opinion, nor by the kJV. God moves at his choosing.

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi canadyjd

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
This is the whole issue with the King James Version, of the Bible. These who translated the King James, believed that the words were important, therefore they translated the original languages into English, word for word(as close as it could be).

Your response........
That is clearly not true. If it were, those who translated the Kiing James version would have used the words "immersed in water" every time they used their invented word "baptized". They didn't most likely because they realized the real meaning of the word was contrary to the common practice of the day (sprinkling).

You know canadyjd, I have heard that same story........

But what do people who actually know Greek say.......

The Greek.........
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo
from a derivative of 911; TDNT-1:529,92; verb
AV-baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Strong’s Definition:
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo; from a derivative of 911;
to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet);
used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:— Baptist, baptize, wash.

Thayer’s Definition:
βαπτί?ω
baptizō?
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G911
Citing in TDNT: 1:529, 92

--------------------------------------------------

You also said.......
Although I believe the KJV is a good translation, they made many mistakes and they obviously didn't know as much about the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) as we do today.

If we know so much today, why is our world so wicked, when there is a Church building on every corner?!?
--------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
But the philosophy behind "every other English translation", is that "words aren't important, but the ideas are;" This is why they feel free to change the words, any way they choose.)

Your response........
A silly accusation.

It is not silly, when we have new translations coming out, that are removing words and verses and whole passages:
And then they explain, “The best Greek manuscripts don’t have this material”.

Who are they, to be deciding “which Greek manuscripts, are best”.
(And they aren’t even in Church!)
--------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
Today, most ministers, are trying to get God's message out to the world and the Church; But they are overlooking a vital component, to God's message. We must use "God's Words", to get God's message across, with power.

Your response........
This sounds an awful lot like the "word of faith" crowd.

Now canadyjd, you read my post, so you must know that what I said, has nothing to do with the “name it and claim it” movement.

So there must be some other reason, that you are making such statements.?.?

Ed Edwards · Jun 14, 2008

nunatak said:
...

I believe that any version or translation of the Scriptures that testifies to the basic fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, is acceptable to be used for instruction, reproof, and teaching about righteousness. You may only think the KJV is acceptable, and that is okay, but don't hold me to your standard for yourself.

Amen, Nunatak -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Read my trailer/signature:

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hello again rbell

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
Also, if this was really an issue, you would think that, with all the variety of Bible's available today, the Church, would be in wonderful shape, and people's lives would be a testimony of the power of God's Word.
-But this just isn't the case.-

Then you said........
Faulty cause and effect. I could just as easily argue that air conditioning is the cause of the church's decline.
I admire your passion...but your arguments are not Biblical ones.

What we are seeing today in Christendom, shows a lack of effect:
“Is their not a cause”
1Samuel 17:29 "And David said, What have I now done? [Is there] not a cause?"

Here are some examples of cause and effect......

1 Corinthians 1:17-18
V.17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
V.18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Romans 1:16-17
V.16 ¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
V.17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Philippians 3:9-10
V.9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
V.10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

1 Corinthians 2:4-5
V.4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
V.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

I believe that there is a problem, and I believe that the cause of this problem is, a lack of Spiritual power. And I see a direct link, between “Getting away from God’s Word”, and “This lack of power”.

Ed Edwards · Jun 14, 2008

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Note the first one is about the Written Word of God,
the Holy Bible (AKA: Holy Scripture).
Note that #2 to #5 (the last four) are about
the Living Word of God, Messiah Jesus.
Notice that a person (even if He is a spiritual person)
is NOT the same as a Book (even if it is the
best book in the world).

To equate the Written Word of God and the Living
Word of God is a step away from the Fundamentals
of Christianity. To equate the Written Word of God
and the Living Word of God is a step toward
a NEW AGE belief.

The next step toward the NEW AGE belief concerning
the Holy Scripture is to use the Divine Bible
(third person of the Holy Trinity) as a divination device
and a fortune telling tool: i.e. using
some Bible Code on the King James Version 1769 (Cambridge)
Edition ONLY.

The Bible Codes are a direct violation of the ETERNAL
LAW OF GOD:

Deu 18:10-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one
that maketh his sonne, or his daughter
to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer,
or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard,
or a Necromancer.
12 For all that do these things,
are an abomination vnto the Lord:

majick - using words to move the elemental forces (demons) of the world

diuination - using majick to determine both past and future
a witch - a female who uses majick
a wyzard - a male who uses majick
an inchanter - a person who uses majick ritual WORDS to rule over others

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi tinytim

Three very good questions:
--------------------------------------------------
I will answer the second one first:

You asked........
“Jesus didn't quote the text that underlies the KJV...
so which one should we go with.. what Jesus said Isaiah said, or what the KJV said Isaiah said?”

Over the years, I have found myself challenging people(that say the Bible has mistakes), to “show me one”.

And therefore, I have ran into these kinds of questions before:

The Answer:
First of all, there are no mistakes in the Bible: If you think you have found one, you are the one making a mistake.
Generally, if you find something in the New Testament, that doesn’t agree with something said in the Old Testament(e.g. “The number of Jacob’s family, that originally went into Egypt”), than the rule of thumb is that the New Testament is correct, so start from their and search for your mistake.

The reason this is the case, is because, the New Testament is always, giving us more light.
--------------------------------------------------
Now for your first question:

You asked......
“If exact words are important, then why did Jesus misquote the Masoretic text”

Well the question is, did he really misquote it?

The eight words, that “some people” seem to have a problem with, are.......
V.18 “to set at liberty them that are bruised,”

But I see this being said in Isaiah 61:1,
“....to proclaim liberty to the captives”
--------------------------------------------------
Now for your third questoin:

You asked.......
“Jesus was closer to the LXX than the Masoretic text...
So since we are to follow Jesus' example, we need to use the LXX not the KJV.”

You are right: Jesus did quote the LXX(Greek Septuagint), on many occasions.
(But the reason it was not used for the KJV, is because it isn’t as good of a translation!)

Therefore you ask, why did Jesus(and others), quote from it.

Well here is the short answer.

Did you know that today, no matter where a person lives in the world, if they want to get a license to fly a plane, they are required to learn to speak English. If you can’t speak understandable English, you will never legally sit in a cockpit. Why do you think this is? Well it’s because, the people of the United States and Great Britain, speak English, so the rest of the world, finds it advantageous, to learn English.

Well, the English, of 2000 years ago was Greek. This was the language of Rome, and Rome was spreading it’s influence throughout the known world. Therefore, 2000 years ago, it would have been advantageous, to learn to speak and read Greek.

I have said all of this, because you will find Jesus and Paul, etc. quoting from the Septuagint, a few times, here and there, when they are trying to get something across to the certain people.

When they do this, they are referring to a document, that most of the people in their audience, were familiar with.

Sometimes, as the New Testament was being penned, a quotation from the Greek Septuagint, would be referred to. I am not sure why(I don’t have all the answers), but this is the best answer that I can give.

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi nunatak

Nice to hear from you, and I praise the Lord for our deliverance.

First you said........

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
In these last days, we are seeing a lot of new ideas, in the area of ministry: E.G. Video presentations, Power point presentations, You tube videos, sites like this etc.. And although there is nothing wrong with these tools, there is "something wrong". Because during this same period of time, the Church's mission is failing. (i.e. People's lives aren't being changed). Therefore, we must be doing something wrong.

Then you said.......
I was born and raised in heresy that today I would call anathema. God miraculously brought myself, my wife, and my three kids out of oneness pentecostalism last year. I had never heard of Justification. Never heard of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Never knew the gospel was encapsulated in 1Cor15. I am 41 this year, and the Lord brought me out of darkness. And I have been born again for 1 year! I haven't even been baptized properly yet!

I think what you are saying, is that I must be wrong, because you are changing.

Well, as I said in a previous response, When I said, “People's lives aren't being changed”, I should have said, “Not as many people's lives are being changed, as could be”. Because some people’s lives, are being changed.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
Before I continue, let me explain how we can tell, that people's lives, aren't being changed. It all has to do with, a lack of true repentance. Some Churches may be full, but the people's hearts are empty; And the reason we know this, is because of all the open sin in their lives. When Jesus is changing people, they are going to be dealing with their sin. And when people are dealing with their sins, pornography and alcohol sales, start dropping off. -This isn't happening.-

Then you said.......
People's lives are changed when they place their faith in Christ alone for salvation. How do you quantify faith? You can't. There may be weak anemic churches. But to say all are is false.

Well nunatak, your question about, “How do you quantify faith?” is an interesting one. Some people would say, “well if someone says they are saved, it doesn’t matter what they are doing, they are saved!”

What I am saying is, this doesn’t make any sense. Because Jesus does make a difference in a person’s life.

I did not intend to imply, that “all” churches are false. I am sorry, if I left you with that impression.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
Now back to my main point; i.e. "The question is, how we can have all the latest technology at our disposal, and yet our message seems to be powerless to really change people's lives?" The source to this problem, has to do with a lack of power. How can we be preaching, "the right message", yet see that same message, powerless to change people's lives?

Then you said.......
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The right message is the gospel of Jesus Christ! And this is that Christ died according to the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And! This Message, this Gospel, is the Power of God unto salvation to every one who believes.

Hey, this is exactly what I am saying! And I like the way you put it, because you exactly quoted Scripture, as you made your point.

But the point that I am making, is that when we try share this Gospel message, in our own words, without using Scripture, than it will not have the power of the Gospel.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
The answer to this question, boils down to "words". We may have "the right message" but are we using the right words to convey it? There is a doctrine, that all true believers accept, but many misunderstand it. That is, the doctrine of "verbal inspiration". We all agree on what "inspiration" means: (i.e. "God breathed") but what about that word, "verbal"? The word verbal, means "using words". God gave us our Bible, using "words", and not simply ideas. Therefore, the true power of God's message, lies in His Words, and not just in His message.

This is the whole issue with the King James Version, of the Bible. These who translated the King James, believed that the words were important, therefore they translated the original languages into English, word for word(as close as it could be). But the philosophy behind "every other English translation", is that "words aren't important, but the ideas are;" This is why they feel free to change the words, any way they choose. (Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

But something else has happened. When the words are changed, the power of the words is taken away.

Today, most ministers, are trying to get God's message out to the world and the Church; But they are overlooking a vital component, to God's message. We must use "God's Words", to get God's message across, with power.

God's powerful message is,
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

and not,

"For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life."

Note: When you change the words, you rob the message, of God's power!

Then you said.......
I believe that any version or translation of the Scriptures that testifies to the basic fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, is acceptable to be used for instruction, reproof, and teaching about righteousness. You may only think the KJV is acceptable, and that is okay, but don't hold me to your standard for yourself.

Here is the problem in a nutshell:
You said.......
“I believe that any version or translation of the Scriptures that testifies to the basic fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, is acceptable”

These very “basic fundamental doctrines”, are being watered down, in most of the English Bibles, that are available today. Yes they are still their, but words have been removed or changed, to make these facts, less clear.

What are you or I going to do: If we use the RSV for instance. How will we know, which verses have those subtle changes in them that take away from the Lord’s Deity, etc.

I see the KJV, as a solid rock, that I can build my life on.
(I never said you had to.)
-I was just shouting out a warning!-

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi again nunatak

You are right : (My name is how I feel

“I don’t have all the answers!”

And Now I see, that the statement I made.......
“Churches that are getting away from the KJV, are taking their emphasis, off of God’s Word.”

May be a little far reaching!

Thanks for the heads up.

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Jun 14, 2008

Regardless of one's feelings on any particular version it is the epitome of arrogance to say that only those who use my translation are growing in Christ and that the problems of the Christian world are caused because my version is not being used.

It is also microcosmic and amerocentred. There are millions of non-English speaking Christians around the world who do not use any English version of Scripture. Yet God is working in these cultures.

I appreciate your fervour stilllearning. The body of Christ needs that desperately in this day and age, and you are only slightly misguided here.

The church is indeed in many cases turning from the word of God, it is just not contingent on any one version.

tinytim · Jun 14, 2008

stilllearning said:
Hi tinytim

The Answer:
First of all, there are no mistakes in the Bible: If you think you have found one, you are the one making a mistake.
Generally, if you find something in the New Testament, that doesn’t agree with something said in the Old Testament(e.g. “The number of Jacob’s family, that originally went into Egypt”), than the rule of thumb is that the New Testament is correct, so start from their and search for your mistake.

The reason this is the case, is because, the New Testament is always, giving us more light.

I didn't say there are mistakes in the Bible. But if the scriptures in the OT are perfect word for word in the Masoretic text, then why did Jesus and Paul not use them?
(I know you answered below... I will deal with that, there)

Now for your first question:

Well the question is, did he really misquote it?

The eight words, that “some people” seem to have a problem with, are.......
V.18 “to set at liberty them that are bruised,”

But I see this being said in Isaiah 61:1,
“....to proclaim liberty to the captives”

But that is not word for word... and in your OP, you stated, "Therefore, the true power of God's message, lies in His Words, and not just in His message."

and

"But the philosophy behind "every other English translation", is that "words aren't important, but the ideas are;" This is why they feel free to change the words, any way they choose. (Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

But something else has happened. When the words are changed, the power of the words is taken away."

Now you say that
“to set at liberty them that are bruised,”
is the same as, "....to proclaim liberty to the captives”
And while I agree that they mean the same, you have shot yourself in the foot, because you are in effect disagreeing with your statement in the OP.

You are either right in the OP, or right here... (I think you are right here):wavey:

Now for your third questoin:

You are right: Jesus did quote the LXX(Greek Septuagint), on many occasions.
(But the reason it was not used for the KJV, is because it isn’t as good of a translation!)

Therefore you ask, why did Jesus(and others), quote from it.

Well here is the short answer.

I have said all of this, because you will find Jesus and Paul, etc. quoting from the Septuagint, a few times, here and there, when they are trying to get something across to the certain people.

When they do this, they are referring to a document, that most of the people in their audience, were familiar with.

Sometimes, as the New Testament was being penned, a quotation from the Greek Septuagint, would be referred to. I am not sure why(I don’t have all the answers), but this is the best answer that I can give.

The bolded here is my emphasis to point this out...

You as well as I both believe the Bible was given by divine inspiration...
So that means that God instructed his writers to use the LXX.

The LXX was one of the worst translations.. but God chose to use it.
Even though it butchered the Masoretic text...
God chose to use it when putting together the NT.

Someone has said that things that are different are not the same...but in this case, the message is the same... not the words, but the message.

Besides, there is a good lesson for us...
God decided to use something that wasn't perfect... Aren't you glad that he chose to use us also!!! I am.

Listen, I used to be a staunch KJVO. Until I noticed that Jesus didn't use the KJV.. (Well, I mean the texts underlying the KJV)...
And if Jesus, Paul, Philip, and the rest of the early church didn't use the Masoretic text, then why was it even used in the KJV?
That is a question that needs answered...

You said, "but this is the best answer that I can give."
I feel you need to back up a little ways and reevaluate the conclusions you have made. Because you are contradicting your own beliefs...
Then you will be able to see there is a better answer...

Listen, I am still learning too, but if I can help you walk, and learn, I will.

Just because the words are not 100% the same, does not change the meaning... Jesus, Paul, and Philip knew this... We should know this too.

canadyjd · Jun 14, 2008

stilllearning said:
Hi canadyjd
You know canadyjd, I have heard that same story........
But what do people who actually know Greek say.......

I stand a little confused, stilllearning. You make this comment, then give the definition of the greek word "baptizo" (immerse in water) as if that supports your claim the KJV translators actually attempted to translate every word as closely as possible.

The truth is, they invented the word "baptize", as a transliteration of the greek word "baptizo", because they knew the church did not practice immersion in water.

That the new word "baptize" has become common place today as an English word does not change what the translators did. That fact demonstrates that your premise is faulty.

It is not silly, when we have new translations coming out, that are removing words and verses and whole passages: And then they explain, “The best Greek manuscripts don’t have this material”. Who are they, to be deciding “which Greek manuscripts, are best”.

Who were the KJV translators to pick and choose which manuscripts were best? What made them better than the scholars of today? Was it because they had the commission of King James? Because they were Anglican? Do you believe they were under the inspiration of Holy Spirit? What makes those men better than the scholars of today?

Some greek manuscripts had been available in the west for 150 years or so, when they made the translation. We have had genuine Christian scholars study these ancient languages for more than 500 years, now. We have more manuscripts, both biblical and secular. We know more about the languages, words uses and semantic meaning, than the KJV scholars did.

(And they aren’t even in Church!)

Even if it were true of some scholars, it doesn't mean they don't know Greek and Hebrew.

Let me give you another example, the KJV scholars declared the name of God to be "Jehovah". We now know they made a mistake because they didn't understand Hebrew.

Original biblical Hebrew is all consonants, no vowels. The vowels were memorized. The Jewish scholars who gave us the Masoretic text (about 500 A.D.) pointed it for vowels.

Jews would not say the name of God (YHVH) for fear God would strike them down if they said it wrong. These Jewish scholars didn't want people who were reading the passages to accidently say the name of God (YHVH) so they put the vowels for a more general word for God: Adoniah (sp) which means "Lord", under the consonants (YHVH). When Jews came to the name of God, they knew to say "Adoniah" instead of "YHVH".

The KJV scholars didn't understand that, so they used the vowels for "adoniah" with the consonants "YHVH", giving us "Jehovah".

Concerning your last point, you make it seem like the "downfall" of the church and of our civilivation is the result of churches using a something other than the KJV of the bible.

Do you really believe that?

peace to you

raying:

pinoybaptist · Jun 14, 2008

The problem is that preaching is supposed to be done IN CHURCH, to God's people, for their instruction and edification, in order for them to be able to answer with confidence whenever someone asks them for the reason they have such confidence.

Preaching is not to be done en masse to just anybody who has an internet connection and knows how to navigate the net and use youtube.

The intentions here may be good, or at least they think their intentions are good, but whatever is God's way cannot be adjusted to man's way.

As for the KJV, stillearning, it's a good translation. But that's all it is. A good translation. I prefer it over all other translations. If I bought a new Bible, I ask for the KJV translation. I feel comfortable with it. And I stop reading when the guy up in the pulpit is using a different translation because I get confused. Like an inexperienced alto trying to mix it up with a baritone and a booming bass voice, you know what I mean.

But it sure ain't no "superior-over-other" translation.
Get over it (no sarcasm intended).
Try reading other translations and see for yourself.
To be sure, there are some version/ translations out there I wouldn't hesitate to use as in the outhouse.
But most of them are okay.

rbell · Jun 14, 2008

C4K said:
Regardless of one's feelings on any particular version it is the epitome of arrogance to say that only those who use my translation are growing in Christ and that the problems of the Christian world are caused because my version is not being used.

It is also microcosmic and amerocentred. There are millions of non-English speaking Christians around the world who do not use any English version of Scripture. Yet God is working in these cultures.

I appreciate your fervour stilllearning. The body of Christ needs that desperately in this day and age, and you are only slightly misguided here.

The church is indeed in many cases turning from the word of God, it is just not contingent on any one version.

Well said.

Let me also say that I appreciate your polite approach, stillearning. Though we disagree, I appreciate how respectful you've been.

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi Ed Edwards

Nice to hear from you, although you were a little difficult to follow.

From your response, I think that what you are saying is that “no book is special”, because no book can contain “the living Word of God”.

If this is indeed what you are saying, than let me point out the flaw in our argument.
--------------------------------------------------
I have been saved for about twenty seven years now, and for almost that entire time, “I” have had a solid rock, that I have built my life on. And this rock isn’t Jesus.
(Although Jesus is “The Rock”, that was cut out, without hands

No, my solid rock, has been God’s Word.

Matthew 7:24-27
V.24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
V.25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
V.26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
V.27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

--------------------------------------------------
The fact is, I wouldn’t know who Jesus was, if it wasn’t for the Bible. Sure, some man, might have told me who He was, but “men can not be trusted”. I will not trust my soul, to the word of a man.

I have also been told, that I am foolish, because.....“don’t I know, that it was men, who translated my Bible into English for me”,....”Why do I trust in them?”
(For me, that is the main question!)

I am not trusting in them: I am trusting what God has given me, by their hands.
(And I am not talking about, “double inspiration”.)
--------------------------------------------------

No, I am not saying that the KJV is magical, but what I am saying, is that it is God’s Word.

If I misunderstood your point, please forgive me.

See you later

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi C4K

I appreciate your response.

First of all, about your statement, about the Bibles, that people who speak other languages use. This has never been an issue with me.

In my post, I made it very clear, that I was talking only about English speaking people.
--------------------------------------------------
But with your last statement, you have put your finger on the heart of the problem.

You said.........
“The church is indeed in many cases turning from the word of God, it is just not contingent on any one version.”

If what you said was true, than we have a much bigger problem. If indeed, God’s Word, isn’t found in any one place, WHERE COULD A PERSON FIND IT.
--------------------------------------------------
I know that it is intellectually proper, to talk down the KJV, and say that there is something better out their, somewhere.

But I trust that my God has preserved His Word for me. And I only speak English.

Therefore, God’s Word MUST be found in some English Bible. For me, the English Bible that is God’s Word, is the KJV. For someone else, it may be the NIV, or the RSV, etc.

God’s Word hasn’t been lost to us, because He is able to have preserved it.

Hope to hear from you again.

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi again tinytim

Just a quick note.......

The reason that I am still “a staunch KJVO” man, is because I trust it.

If you have found “a single English translation of the Bible” that you trust, please let me know which one it is.

But if you are now using two or more Bibles, than I believe that you made a mistake, when you left the KJV.

I am anxious to hear from you.

stilllearning · Jun 14, 2008

Hi again canadyjd

First you said.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilllearning
Hi canadyjd
You know canadyjd, I have heard that same story........
But what do people who actually know Greek say.......

Note: When I said, that “I have heard that same story before”, what I was getting at, was the strong possibility, that this whole story(of what was going on in the minds of the translators), may have be concocted. Because this “story”, puts a bad light on the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------
As for your confusion, because I identify the Greek word "baptizo", with the word "baptize": This is confusing me.

I have a nice dictionary on my computer, and for the word baptize, this is what it said...

baptize (bàp-tìz¹, bàp¹tìź) verb
baptized, baptizing, baptizes verb, transitive
1. To admit into Christianity by means of baptism.
2. a. To cleanse or purify. b. To initiate.
3. To give a first or Christian name to; christen.

verb, intransitive
To administer baptism.
[Middle English baptizen, from Old French baptiser, from Late Latin baptizâre, from Greek baptizein, from baptein, to dip.]
— baptiz¹er nou

Now, as far as I can tell, this is a real word.
-----------------------
As for what was going on in the hearts of the translators of the KJV, only God knows.
But this Bible has been a blessing to me.
--------------------------------------------------
Now for the importance of the question, of whether of not, they attended Church:
-You made my point:-

In one of your paragraphs, you said...........

“We have had genuine Christian scholars study these ancient languages for more than 500 years”; (I highlighted these words)

Then when you quote my statement......
(And they aren't even in Church!)

You say......

“Even if it were true of some scholars, it doesn't mean they don't know Greek and Hebrew.”

So what is more important: Being “genuine Christian scholars” or “know Greek and Hebrew”?

Expecting to hear from you again.

"Christendom....we have a problem"

<img src =/tim2.jpg>

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Active Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

<img src =/tim2.jpg>

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member