Doctrine verses "Versions"??

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
99% of Bible scholars agree that Ps 12 does NOT teach preservation of the Word of God. But all agree that other verses DO teach it and that God HAS preserved His Word.

Who are Bible scholars?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
99% of Bible scholars agree that Ps 12 does NOT teach preservation of the Word of God. But all agree that other verses DO teach it and that God HAS preserved His Word.

Who are Bible scholars? </font>[/QUOTE]You ought to know. They are the same ones you have made reference to many times.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
99% of Bible scholars agree that Ps 12 does NOT teach preservation of the Word of God. But all agree that other verses DO teach it and that God HAS preserved His Word.

Who are Bible scholars? </font>[/QUOTE]You ought to know. They are the same ones you have made reference to many times. </font>[/QUOTE]Naturalistic scholars?

 

[robycop3]

POR:Uh, they translated the KJB Ps 12:6,7 just as it reads, but gave the objective rendering in the side note Roby, learn something!

No, YOU learn something..."Them" can be PEOPLE or ROCKS, plural of ANYTHING. The AV men apparently thought the same thing, and they clarified "them" with their note, showing us JUST WHAT they meant with "them". They also believed the word was plural, that it didn't apply to just one person.

Yes, their note was quite objective, revealing their belief of what this verse in Hebrew means in English.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Roby, I see you never learned how to follow the flow of the subject matter in any form of literature, but also you don't know very much about Hebrew either, which also follows the same rules of literature concerning the flow of the matter of the subject at hand.

In the first segment of Ps 12:7, "them" is directly referring to "words"/ the words of God being "kept", but then the second "them" (can be only) transliterated as "people" as in the masculine rendering of the pronoun, but that cannot be said about the first segment's pronoun which can ONLY be "words" in the area of personification of the "words" as describing "them".

You need to learn the use of the punctuation mark called the "colon".

The reason for the sidenote is to distinguish the first "them" from the second in meaning about who or what is being referred to when spoken.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

So 400 years later you know what they thought? I only know what they wrote, and you have this esp to be able to read the minds of people deceased for 350 years?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
So 400 years later you know what they thought? I only know what they wrote, and you have this esp to be able to read the minds of people deceased for 350 years?

So, you use the 1611 version, I take it? I know what they wrote in 1611 too, they wrote the apocrypha.

In all seriousness, there is truth to my answer. The same reasoning would go with the authors of the LONGER LASTING Latin Vulgate and the reason its translators did what they did. We know what they wrote, and we also know that it is 1000 plus years old--doesn't make it right.

The bottom line is, I'm still at a loss to see doctrinal change.

 

[robycop3]

POR:Roby, I see you never learned how to follow the flow of the subject matter in any form of literature, but also you don't know very much about Hebrew either

Ralphie, ol' bean, I got some shocking news for ya: there aint no specific Hebrew there for EITHER "them". So yer whole post is chicken teeth.

 

[manchester]

We should first get the correct scriptures, then decide the doctrine. We should not decide what doctrines we want to believe, then find a translation that will support our views.

Hypothetically, if new translations show correct doctrine, and the KJV shows false doctrine, then we should reject the KJV. The truth and the Word of God should be the standard, not adherence to the traditions of men.

 

[Trotter]

Manchester,

The sticking point is this: Neither the KJV nor the mainstream modern versions alter doctrine. This is but a fairytale spun by the KJVOists to prop up thier false, non-scriptural doctrine.

The KJV is a fine, if somewhat outdated, translation. Although it uses language that was outdated when it was originally translated, it is still the word of God (same as the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV, whatever). God just forgot to add that one magical verse that the KJVOists need...the one that says God would only allow one English translation to be His word.

Silly? Very...and if it wasn't so dangerous to the church, we'd all just laugh and call the guys in the white jackets. Unfortunately, KJVOism is a cancer, a cancer within Christianity.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
So 400 years later you know what they thought? I only know what they wrote, and you have this esp to be able to read the minds of people deceased for 350 years?

So, you use the 1611 version, I take it? I know what they wrote in 1611 too, they wrote the apocrypha.

In all seriousness, there is truth to my answer. The same reasoning would go with the authors of the LONGER LASTING Latin Vulgate and the reason its translators did what they did. We know what they wrote, and we also know that it is 1000 plus years old--doesn't make it right.

The bottom line is, I'm still at a loss to see doctrinal change. </font>[/QUOTE]Is that really the best you can do, introduce the Apocrypha into the discussion? We all know that was only there for historicaL REFERENCE.

Yal are trying your best to alter the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God by delinating the passage of Ps 12.

I've given you the correct interpretation of verse 7, you refuse, so advance on, or that is, get it right.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by robycop3:
POR:Roby, I see you never learned how to follow the flow of the subject matter in any form of literature, but also you don't know very much about Hebrew either

Ralphie, ol' bean, I got some shocking news for ya: there aint no specific Hebrew there for EITHER "them". So yer whole post is chicken teeth.

Try looking at the Hebrew and quit qith your rant, it's there, the KJB translators knew it was, why can't you see it? Blind? Willingly, blind?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Funny Trotter, I have never known the LORD to be deceived by flattery, nor His works equated w/ the devices of the wicked as given in the NasV and the Nkjv. So doctrine IS altered by these two "versions", as well as some scripture left out that strengthens the Doctrine of the Son of God, so you want a portion or the Whole enchilada?

How hungry and thirsty after righteousness are you?

Give me the KJB, and I'l be able to live for Christ by adhering to the Truth!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Notice: This thread will be closed no later than 5:00 P.M. CST today.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by manchester:
We should first get the correct scriptures, then decide the doctrine. We should not decide what doctrines we want to believe, then find a translation that will support our views.

Hypothetically, if new translations show correct doctrine, and the KJV shows false doctrine, then we should reject the KJV. The truth and the Word of God should be the standard, not adherence to the traditions of men.

You are absolutely right. When I first became a Christian I started attending a fundamentalist Bible church. I always thought they were conservative and took God at His word. Then when I moved I went to a church that had a little different view on some things that challenged what I thought I believed. Did I ever get an eye-opener. Both churches were winning people to Christ. They loved people and both churches were doing their best to serve God.

If the people today were to begin doing some research into the available documentation about what the early church was like amidst the cultural and political climate we would see a very different church. A number of the pastors know this but are afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs. People fear that what they have will be taken away from them. When they find out about some thing they do not know what to do with the information.

For example for several years I began to ask questions, read opposing views to what others told me. I knew that every viewpoint could not be right. So as I dug I learned that much of what countries have in their churches stems from the religious group that came first. Much of what we see as right in America stems from the culture of the RCC because it was the RCC that propagated their faith first in a number of areas. What I found out in my research was that in a letter to Trajan from Pliny in 112 A.D. he talks about two women the Christians call deaconesses. When I first came across that I didn't know what to do with the information. I thought what do I do now with what I know. As I dug I realized in the early church there were very significant ministries for women recognized by the church.

The following is a part of a sermon I gave from I Timothy 3.


In the Greek text there is not a definite article before women or at least a genitive pronoun following the word "woman". This would lead one to translate that word "women" and not "wives"

d. Another point is this: if Paul did mean wives of deacons, then why did he not include a corresponding set of qualifications for the wives of pastors?

e. You might ask "if Paul meant deaconess, why didn't he use that word?" At that time there was not a word for deaconess.

f. There is plenty of evidence that the early church utilized women in ministry. There were women whose responsibility was to work with other women and children. They performed pastoral work with the sick and the poor and helped at baptism. From the earliest times deaconesses visited the sick, acted as door-keepers at the women's entrance to the church, kept order among church women, taught females in preparation for baptism and acted as sponsors for homeless children. They also carried official messages. There was a clearer line drawn between the sexes than there is today. Women deacons were not on the same level as men deacons. They could not teach and minister to mixed groups of people or men, and they were not ordained.

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did

Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches.

g. The emergence of deaconesses is unclear. But in the third and fourth centuries the office deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. 'In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses.
(Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)

h. Explain the relationship between the male and female deacon.

If the pastor wanted to communicate to a woman in the congregation he went through a deacon who went through a deaconess and then to the woman. If a woman in the congregation wanted to talk with the pastor she went through a deaconess then she talked with the deacon and the deacon spoke with the pastor.

I understand it is still very much the same way in a number of those countries today.

The women in the church were subject to the deaconesses and they deaconesses were subject to the deacons who were subject to the pastor. In this kind of arraignment it would less likely have trouble with the pastor being tempted with a woman in the congregation.