Taufgesinnter
New Member
Footnote: The Living Bible began as a project for children.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Any Christians have their soul-winning method to win the losts to Jesus Christ. No problem! However modern versions affect these doctrine of Salvation. More problems!Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Bible version has nothing to do with true salvation but I do consider Bible study an important part of the Christian walk.
NASB on John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Bible version has nothing to do with true salvation but I do consider Bible study an important part of the Christian walk.
Because it is following the command of Christ to strive to make oneself "perfect" like our Father is perfect. Matthew 5:481. Why is Salvation obtain(ed?) by obeying the Son of God?
In Pauline and Johannine thought, yes, they are very closely related. Belief, loyalty and obedience are all elements of faith, through which we are saved. 1John 2:3-62. Are Believe and obey same meaning?
More specifically, it is a work by salvation. Galatians 5:25; Philippians 2:12-133. Is a word, "obey" the salvation by works?
Trying to build doctrine upon one verse is not very productive and the above example demonstrates the need for study, no matter what your version preference, the point of my first post on this thread.Many passages in modern versions affect doctrine of Salvation.
I honestly don't think you could have proven Askjo's point any better if you had tried. I find this to be one of the saddest posts I have read. "Faith without works is pagan faith"? Sign me up on the pagan roll then because I have no works worthy of merit. The Book of James is not written to unbelievers at all. It is never meant to refer to (or to explain in any way) salvation. It is written to explain how we should conduct ourselves now that we are saved by faith without works (Rom. 11:6, Eph 2:8,9 etc.)Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
1. Why is Salvation obtaining by obeying the Son of God?
Why did God choose to set that as the condition of salvation? I don't know. I only know that that is what the Scriptures teach. The heathen Greek idea of faith was intellectual assent to a set of propositions. The biblical idea of faith is that of trusting obedience. Faith without works is pagan faith, and it is dead.
2. Are Believe and obey same meaning?
They share substantial semantic overlap, since believing is an act of obedience and continued belief equates to continued obedience. There is very, very little distinction between faith and faithfulness.
3. Is a word, "obey" the salvation by works?
No, because works are works of the OT law. Deliverance is by unmerited favor through trusting obedience, and that does not come out of ourselves--it is the gift of God, not earned by works of the law, so that nobody can brag.
The doctrine of John 3:36 is consistent with Johannine teaching elsewhere: see 1 John, especially.
I honestly don't think you could have proven Askjo's point any better if you had tried. I find this to be one of the saddest posts I have read. "Faith without works is pagan faith"? Sign me up on the pagan roll then because I have no works worthy of merit. The Book of James is not written to unbelievers at all. It is never meant to refer to (or to explain in any way) salvation. It is written to explain how we should conduct ourselves now that we are saved by faith without works (Rom. 11:6, Eph 2:8,9 etc.)Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
1. Why is Salvation obtaining by obeying the Son of God?
Why did God choose to set that as the condition of salvation? I don't know. I only know that that is what the Scriptures teach. The heathen Greek idea of faith was intellectual assent to a set of propositions. The biblical idea of faith is that of trusting obedience. Faith without works is pagan faith, and it is dead.
2. Are Believe and obey same meaning?
They share substantial semantic overlap, since believing is an act of obedience and continued belief equates to continued obedience. There is very, very little distinction between faith and faithfulness.
3. Is a word, "obey" the salvation by works?
No, because works are works of the OT law. Deliverance is by unmerited favor through trusting obedience, and that does not come out of ourselves--it is the gift of God, not earned by works of the law, so that nobody can brag.
The doctrine of John 3:36 is consistent with Johannine teaching elsewhere: see 1 John, especially.
At this point I must diverge from your thinking. Unless we are defining repentance, confession or trust as "works," the example of the theif on the cross in Luke 23:42 denies the neccessity of any works. To believe otherwise would deny deathbed confessions, salvation for infants and children who die, and the mentally incompetent.Taufgesinnter: Salvation by faith without works doesn't exist.
I apologize. But I did not mean it as an attack but rather a discussion. I am repeatedly accused of circular reasonig and holding to a double standard. But if I post an opinion. (Which is exactly what you did!) I am attacking? I have also come to expect a few negative things on these boards but I'm pretty hard headed.Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Thanks for the undeserved attack. It's getting kind of expected.
I'm sorry, I thought this topic was about what Bible versions determine where you spend eternity.Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Wisdom Seeker -
Please note that my post was being composed while your submission was being posted.
I did not see your post until after my entry was sent and my comment did not have a thing to do with you nor your statements. The mention of the LB in both our posts is a coincidence. It is not a "rabbit trail" of your making.
So while your statement is a respectful suggestion, I make no apologies for my comment.
To glean from some of the posts, this is what I, personally, have determined. It doesn't matter; it's a personal choice.Let's say, like me, you are NOT a Bible scholar and you do not read (nor have you studied) Greek and Hebrew languages. What difference does it make as to what version of God's Word you read and understand?
Exactly...it's a personal choice!Originally posted by Wisdom Seeker:
For some, the KJV is the only correct version for English speaking people to read or hear God's word from. Because it was translated from a text that came from a source that is considered by many to be more correct, or have less errors. And therefore be more miraculous in origin than what is considered a corrupt text source that all the other versions are said to be translated from.
For some others, the other versions are easier for them to understand, and so the difference in sometimes subtle inference of meaning because of the translation from another set of texts which some believe had more error, but was older in origin.... is either fine with them, or they don't know about it. Some even believe that this is just something that a group of people made up for some reason.
I only use the KJV now. For the reasons that I've studied out for myself. But I think this is a personal decision. I know why I use it.
Exactly...certain versions are probably more appropriate/suited for various purposes.Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
I do prefer certain versions for various purposes. I think the elegance of the KJV is quite fitting for funerals or formal writing. I like the conservative scholarship represented in the NIV study notes. I like the tedious accuracy of the ESV and NASB.
"All faithful translations — those made with the best sources, with the least personal bias — are the word of God. All are edifying."Originally posted by rsr:
To the original question: Well, yes, versions do matter, but not for the usual reasons given. God could have preserved a single copy of the original manuscripts. He, for His own reasons, chose not to do so. (I suspect, but it's only a suspicion, that He chose this method for the same reason that He did not preserve the cross and other relics: that they would not become objects of idolatry. I guess that's pretty far-fetched, but it's late.)
Thus it is left to us to do the best we can, with the help of the Spirit and our God-given brains, to discover the best sources we can. We will disagree, but the disagreements, to me, are minor.
So, yes, we want the best versions. If we are convinced that one is 100.00% correct rather than 99.99% percent, we will want that one. How we arrive at that conclusion is the problem.
All faithful translations — those made with the best sources, with the least personal bias — are the word of God. All are edifying.
At this point I must diverge from your thinking. Unless we are defining repentance, confession or trust as "works," the example of the theif on the cross in Luke 23:42 denies the neccessity of any works. To believe otherwise would deny deathbed confessions, salvation for infants and children who die, and the mentally incompetent.Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Taufgesinnter: Salvation by faith without works doesn't exist.