Does it matter?

[Taufgesinnter]

Footnote: The Living Bible began as a project for children.

 

[rsr]

And its biggest audience quickly became teenagers. (I happened to live through that era.)

I had a Living Bible and read it with, I think, with some edification, but it soon was only a supplement to the NASB (though I much preferred the Phillips to the LB).

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.

But there is no faithful translation, from KJV to ESV, that distorts willingly, or fatally, the word of God.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

I would like to respectfully suggest that if the Living Bible and it's problems are something that anyone thinks are important enough to discuss (I do not) please start a topic on this subject on it's own. For I'm pretty sure that this isn't the direction that C.J. intended this discussion to go in.

My adding the Bible I chose to read in 1974 at the age of 12 after my salvation, was "fluff" added to humanize my post. Nothing more.

I apologize for the rabbit trail the last little bit of my post caused. I usually don't add personal information for exactly this reason.

I believe the topic askes these two questions:

"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? IF YOU ARE SAVED, WILL WHICH BIBLE VERSION YOU USE AFFECT WHERE YOU SPEND ETERNITY? "

"What difference does it make as to what version of God's Word you read and understand?"

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Wisdom Seeker -

Please note that my post was being composed while your submission was being posted. My comments regarding the LB are germane in that they are a follow up to my thought of "I do consider Bible study an important part of the Christian walk."

I did not see your post until after my 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.

 

[Askjo]

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.

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!

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."

ESV on John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

KJV on John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

1. Why is Salvation obtaining by obeying the Son of God?

2. Are Believe and obey same meaning?

3. Is a word, "obey" the salvation by works?

Many passages in modern versions affect doctrine of Salvation.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

A false charge as usual...

G544
απειθέω
apeitheō
Thayer Definition:
1) not to allow one’s self to be persuaded
1a) to refuse or withhold belief
1b) to refuse belief and obedience
2) not to comply with
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G545
Citing in TDNT: 6:10, 818

G545
απειθής
apeithēs
Thayer Definition:
1) impersuasible, not compliant, disobedient, contumacious
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1 (as a negative particle) and G3982
Citing in TDNT: 6:10, 818


Strong's:
G544
απειθέω
apeitheō
ap-i-theh'-o
From G545; to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely): - not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

G545
απειθής
apeithēs
ap-i-thace'
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3982; unpersuadable, that is, contumacious: - disobedient.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

John 3:36

(A Conservative Version) He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

(Amplified) And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life. But whoever disobeys (is unbelieving toward, refuses to trust in, disregards, is not subject to) the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him. [God's displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.]

(ASV 1901) He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

(1599 Geneva Bible) Hee that beleeueth in the Sonne, hath euerlasting life, and hee that obeyeth not the Sonne, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

(Good News Bible) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not have life, but will remain under God's punishment.

(GNT-TR) ο πιστευων εις τον υιον εχει ζωην αιωνιον ο δε απειθων τω υιω ουκ οψεται ζωην αλλ η οργη του θεου μενει επ αυτον

(HNV) One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won't see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

(ISV) The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him.

(Green's Literal Version) The one believing into the Son has everlasting life; but the one disobeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

(Montgomery NT) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him.

(Murdock Syriac) He that believeth on the Son, hath life eternal; but he who obeyeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God will abide upon him.

(NASB) 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.

(OrthJBC) The one with emunah in HaBen (Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach) has Chayyei Olam; but the one disobeying HaBen will not see Chayyim, but the Charon Af of Hashem remains on him.

(REIMER) Waea aun daen Saen jleeft, haft daut eewje Laewe, en waea daen Saen nich jehuarsaum es, saul daut Laewe nich seene, oba blift unja Gott sien Oaja.

(World English Bible) One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won't see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

(Weymouth NT) He who believes in the Son has the Life of the Ages; he who disobeys the Son will not enter into Life, but God's anger remains upon him.

 

[Askjo]

Taufgesinnter, you did not answer my 3 questions.

 

[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.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

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.

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."

ESV on John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

KJV on John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."</font>[/QUOTE]There is no contradiction of doctrine in these versions. Mere intellectual belief is not salvific unto itself:

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (KJV)

1. Why is Salvation obtain(ed?) by obeying the Son of God?

Because it is following the command of Christ to strive to make oneself "perfect" like our Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48

2. Are Believe and obey same meaning?

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 2:3-6

3. Is a word, "obey" the salvation by works?

More specifically, it is a work by salvation. Galatians 5:25; Philippians 2:12-13

Salvation is a threefold term in the New Testament. The initial conversion (acquittal) known as Justification (i.e. Galatians 2:16; Romans 5:1), the act of consecration through obedience (vindication) known as Sanctification (i.e. Ephesians 2:10; 2Peter 1:5-10; Philippians 3:12-14), and the final reward (judgment) known as Glorification (i.e. Romans 13:11)

Many passages in modern versions affect doctrine of Salvation.

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.

[ September 28, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Dr. Bob]

(2 Th 1:8 KJV) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

(1 Pet 4:17 KJV) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Common phrasing. How does one "obey" the Gospel? By repentance/belief, of course.

Another red herring from the only sect.

 

[Lacy Evans]

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.)

Faith with works (for salvation) is Catholic, JW, Alexandrian faith! It is no wonder you believe that way. But remember, No KJVOer ever once proved an important doctrinal difference in between the King James and MVs.

Lacy

 

[Taufgesinnter]

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.

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.)

Faith with works (for salvation) is Catholic, JW, Alexandrian faith! It is no wonder you believe that way. But remember, No KJVOer ever once proved an important doctrinal difference in between the King James and MVs.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the undeserved attack. It's getting kind of expected.

I believed the teachings on salvation of the evangelical Anabaptists and original Baptists both during and after the years I was a TRO. What versions I use has nothing to do with my rejecting trees that bear no fruit.

I don't find the gospel sad at all.

I don't see why you would disagree with me by wanting to sign up for a dead faith that cannot save you, then turn right around and agree with me that salvation is not merited by works.

Then you assume that salvation has nothing to do with justification--since James was writing explicitly about justification. You went off on a rant against the Textus Receptus, apparently, since it contained the wording that means "disobey" in John 3:36, and against the doctrine taught by the KJV on the same issue (as already cited by Dr. Bob).

Finally, you concluded that Catholics, JWs, and the faithful Christians in Alexandria who preserved God's Word all had biblical faith (faith with works), which seems a little far-fetched.

Basic Bible doctrines:

Faith without works is dead.

Salvation by faith without works doesn't exist.

Salvation by works cannot exist.

Salvation is by grace (that's unmerited, incidentally) through faith that works.

Believers are saved through faith with works, but nobody can earn salvation by works. You can't earn something that's unmerited, otherwise it would no longer be by grace.

As it says in the 1769 KJV, the Bible I use most often for quick reference, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10).

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Taufgesinnter: Salvation by faith without works doesn't exist.

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.

While these are certainly the exceptions and not the rules, they are nonetheless valid considerations and add a clause to the doctrine of Sanctification.

John 5:30

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Thanks for the undeserved attack. It's getting kind of expected.

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.

Breath deep. It will be OK

Two saved men with no works.

*The thief on the cross.
T*he man in I Cor 3:15 whose works were all burned uo at the Judgment seat.

Lacy

 

[Ed Edwards]

Does anybody want to talk about their special
call to defend the Holy Bible, God's
written Word?

 

[Ransom]

Lacy Evans said:

Two saved men with no works.

*The thief on the cross.

On the contrary. The thief, formerly a reviler of Christ with his partner on the third cross, turned away from his mocking and in fact did his part for the Kingdom by rebuking the other thief who did not repent. What few good works God had prepared for him beforehand (Eph. 2:10), he did.

T*he man in I Cor 3:15 whose works were all burned uo at the Judgment seat.

This passage is specifically addressing worthless and divisive teaching. Can you say with certainty that such a one has nothing else to his name at all?

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

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.

I'm sorry, I thought this topic was about what Bible versions determine where you spend eternity.

But to be fair, my post addressed the group. Not you personally.

 

[computerjunkie]

Wow...this thread really took off, didn't it??

OK, let's regroup! I will start by re-phrasing my original "rant" because it may have been misleading. I AM saved and I KNOW where I will spend eternity! So, does it matter which Bible translation/version I use in my personal Bible study/reading? My point is that there seems to be so much "heated" discussion about KJV-only and I honestly don't understand why it is such an issue. I simply love to read God's Word.

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?

To glean from some of the posts, this is what I, personally, have determined. It doesn't matter; 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...it's a personal choice!

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.

Exactly...certain versions are probably more appropriate/suited for various purposes.

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.

"All faithful translations — those made with the best sources, with the least personal bias — are the word of God. All are edifying."

Amen! So what is the basis of the KJV-only vs. other translation debate? In God's great plan for us, does it matter which version we use? Or is it just a way for Satan to get a foothold, then sit back and watch Christians arguing over something that really doesn't matter?

Really no intent to stir up anything...I am just honestly wondering why this always seems to be such a big issue.

Thanks...CJ

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Taufgesinnter: Salvation by faith without works doesn't exist.

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.

While these are certainly the exceptions and not the rules, they are nonetheless valid considerations and add a clause to the doctrine of Sanctification.

John 5:30 </font>[/QUOTE]The thief on the cross had faith with works, as recorded in the gospels. And those who are innocent are unaccountable for their sins, which have been covered by the atonement. They cannot have faith to be saved, but they don't need it. Salvation by grace through faith is for sinners--it's how the blood is applied to them; the innocent already have it.

[ September 29, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Taufgesinnter ]