he is wrong about that, but doubt that is he the ONLY one here with their own pet favorite bible version!
-
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!
Does One Size Fit All?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
he is wrong about that, but doubt that is he the ONLY one here with their own pet favorite bible version!
Being a KJVO person and having a favorite Bible translation are worlds apart.
It is a huge contrast;not a comparison.
He just pushes it to the extreme, and that is what makes him wrong!
DrJamesAch
New Member
One God created one universe that began with one man and one woman whom God placed on one planet. After man sinned God later made a promise to one man to bless his posterity and created one nation from which one Savior would die for all and He declared there was only one way to heaven. The gospel of this was to preached unto all the world by what was supposed to be one church.
During the OT, they did not have 1000 different Hebrew Bibles, they had one.
During the early church days, they did not have 1000 different Greek translations, they had one. Now that English is the universal language, and ever since Rome got its hands on corrupted manuscripts, today men believe we need to make a translation for every one with an IQ of 70, 80, 90, 100, liberals, Protestants, Catholics and gays. If you don't like the doctrine, find a "scholar" to help give a different view of a Bible verse based on some obscure Greek or Hebrew passage and add to and create your own denomination.
If a Byzantine reading agrees with the Textus Receptus, reclassify it into a different family of MS so that it does not appear to be in the same line as those underlying the KJV and then claim that the KJV borrowed from the LXX or Latin Vulgate. Take readings from the LXX and Aleph and B, and put some of them into the Syrian or Byzantine families. When the Greek has the possibility of translating a dipthong 5 different ways, none of which are wrong, create some kind of argument that proves any other reading besides the KJV is a "better" way to translate the word.
And by all means, encourage everyone to do word searches from Strong's so that those who don't know Greek or Hebrew who don't know that Strong's is comparing his interpretations based on Westcott & Horts definitions so the scoffers have an army of laymen to confuse the rest of the churches.
Or convince students that Origen's Hexapla (from whence came the LXX) was the basis for the NT even though it was forged several hundred years after the original writings.
And the best one yet, tell your members that only the "originals" were inspired so that nobody believes any future translations fall under inspiration even though when Paul made that statement Revelation had not yet been written. Tell folks that because of the difficulty in translation from one language to another, that the English translators were subject to error, even though the apostles that translated Hebrew passages into Greek quotes (like in Stephens sermon in Acts 7) did not make any mistakes, and the Hebrew translated to the Greek just fine without anyone criticizing Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Jude or James for failing to properly translate books that had it's last book written 400 years prior to the writings of the NT (you know, that "scholarly" argument that the more society evolves, the more we know about translations and languages, not that God had anything to do with protecting and preserving the translation, and forget the fact that God promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12 before the NT was written).
And of course for the grand finally, tell everyone that all the Bibles are really the same so long as you get the "meaning" right even though there are thousands of places where the meaning is wrong. Tell everyone God is not the author of confusion, but that it's OK that we have 2 main lines of MSS (TR vs A/B) that differ in nearly 6,000 places, and yet are still the same.
So one size for all? It worked before "scholars" got a hold of the MSS and polluted them.
During the OT, they did not have 1000 different Hebrew Bibles, they had one.
During the early church days, they did not have 1000 different Greek translations, they had one. Now that English is the universal language, and ever since Rome got its hands on corrupted manuscripts, today men believe we need to make a translation for every one with an IQ of 70, 80, 90, 100, liberals, Protestants, Catholics and gays. If you don't like the doctrine, find a "scholar" to help give a different view of a Bible verse based on some obscure Greek or Hebrew passage and add to and create your own denomination.
If a Byzantine reading agrees with the Textus Receptus, reclassify it into a different family of MS so that it does not appear to be in the same line as those underlying the KJV and then claim that the KJV borrowed from the LXX or Latin Vulgate. Take readings from the LXX and Aleph and B, and put some of them into the Syrian or Byzantine families. When the Greek has the possibility of translating a dipthong 5 different ways, none of which are wrong, create some kind of argument that proves any other reading besides the KJV is a "better" way to translate the word.
And by all means, encourage everyone to do word searches from Strong's so that those who don't know Greek or Hebrew who don't know that Strong's is comparing his interpretations based on Westcott & Horts definitions so the scoffers have an army of laymen to confuse the rest of the churches.
Or convince students that Origen's Hexapla (from whence came the LXX) was the basis for the NT even though it was forged several hundred years after the original writings.
And the best one yet, tell your members that only the "originals" were inspired so that nobody believes any future translations fall under inspiration even though when Paul made that statement Revelation had not yet been written. Tell folks that because of the difficulty in translation from one language to another, that the English translators were subject to error, even though the apostles that translated Hebrew passages into Greek quotes (like in Stephens sermon in Acts 7) did not make any mistakes, and the Hebrew translated to the Greek just fine without anyone criticizing Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Jude or James for failing to properly translate books that had it's last book written 400 years prior to the writings of the NT (you know, that "scholarly" argument that the more society evolves, the more we know about translations and languages, not that God had anything to do with protecting and preserving the translation, and forget the fact that God promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12 before the NT was written).
And of course for the grand finally, tell everyone that all the Bibles are really the same so long as you get the "meaning" right even though there are thousands of places where the meaning is wrong. Tell everyone God is not the author of confusion, but that it's OK that we have 2 main lines of MSS (TR vs A/B) that differ in nearly 6,000 places, and yet are still the same.
So one size for all? It worked before "scholars" got a hold of the MSS and polluted them.
Last edited by a moderator:
glazer1972
Member
I steer clear of the Niv and the paraphrases but I will admit that God can use those. I will use the NKJV, ESV, KJV, and the NASB. The reason I don't like the NIV is that there were some on the translation committee that had no business being there.
Your ignorance is showing here. That post was a waste of a few hundred words.
God has not changed and he did not put a premium on one English translation to the exclusion of all others, regardless of how often the KJVO's repeat it.
You wrote the above with this in your signature.
Aren't these two quotes kinda contrary to one another? :flower:
Nope. I didn't label anyone. I pointed out facts.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Excellent Summary
Doc James....that was excellent. Real facts and real truth.:thumbs::thumbs::applause:
I, for one, appreciate your presence here.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Doc James....that was excellent. Real facts and real truth.:thumbs::thumbs::applause:
I, for one, appreciate your presence here.
Bro.Greg:saint:
DrJamesAch
New Member
It is a little bewildering how you make such overbearing attempts to display your academia in such vitriolic fashion that often falls short of being accurate.
For example, ignorance implies that I have not studied the facts of which I write about, or simply am unaware of the existence of facts in which you say (but rarely provide) exist in contradistinction to my arguments. You neither know or can prove what I have and have not studied or what I know and do not know. Thus your assumption about what I am ignorant of is not a very scholarly assessment of my posts.
What is ironic about your argument is that you defend the usage of a plethora of Bible translations, but offer such a myopic view of opinions other than your own. So one Bible for you is not a 'one size fits all', but yet YOUR opinions should be 'one size fits all'. For someone that has clearly cornered the market on scholarly debate and fact gathering, I am very surprised you evaded that contradiction.
Brother, any way you cut and dice it, the term "ignorance" is a label when used in this context. And it is especially so with the sentence that followed usage of that label.
As a layman, with much to learn, Baptist Board, represents a place to learn. A place where Godly men and women can use their formal education, life experience, and most importantly guidance from the Holy Spirit to help others mature in their faith. To mature in their understanding of the scriptures and both sides of any worldly issues that surround them.
Brother, how can I learn from you (AND OTHERS) when instead of "teaching" the choice is made to belittle students sitting in a Sunday school classroom or the pews where the entire congregation gathers? Yes, students with an s. Because, you see, everytime you or someone else steps up to the pulpit (keyboard) in the role of a teacher, your words apply to everyone who still has something that can be learned from you. You've made some excellent posts here at BB and I have learned from you. Thus, the label that you applied to someone else also sticks to me. Am I "wasting a few hundred words" every time I post my OPINION?
On to another point. There is one thing we can agree upon with the post quoted above. God does not change. That is a fact that everyone coming to this assembly of believers should be in 100% agreement.
Beyond that, you didn't post facts. You posted your opinion. You also posted another of the frequent half-truths, that surround so many issues discussed here. Omitting the few radicals and extremists that hold to the KJVO view, the core issue is the supporting documents used for translation -- An English Bible for English speaking peoples. (Also, trying to omit the radicals and extremists who support MV, as well. Both sides of this issue have them, and they should be omitted from debate. Unless the debate issue is about them specifically.)
Further, neither you nor I can say with certainty how much premium God did or didn't apply towards anything that isn't spelled out with clarity in His word. His word teaches us that He keeps His promises. One of which is that He promised to preserve His word. We also know something else. The KJB has been a viable source of His word for over 400 years. Can you say with certainty that God did not have a Hand in that? Thoughts of Job come to mind, as I type. Did Job know, at the time, the roles that both God and satan played during his trials? It seems that he only knew, with certainty, that God doesn't change and that God keeps His promises.
Can you say with certainty that ANY translation of His word, being used today, will be around another 400 years from now? I can't. (A) He may bring about His final resolution as the sun rises tomorrow morning. (B) He may be allowing satan even greater opportunity to place his version of "premium" into play, just as Job was tested. (C) Amos 8:11 (KJB)
In closing, first, thanks for allowing me to climb on my soapbox, using your post. Brother, none of these words are to be construed as a personal attack on you, my brother in Christ. Next, as often stated, I'm not a KJVO, as I believe that a verse of His word, printed on the back of a business card, can bring a lost person to Christ. Further, a person can come to Christ, without reading a single verse of scripture from any printed Bible.
My "beef" is two fold. (1) Any topic of debate - chosing to use words to belittle and demean brothers and sisters with a differing opinion.
Ignorance, ignorant, stupid, evil, and a host of other terms and "labels".
(2) Treating the KJB, that DOES contain God's word, as if it were yesterday's newspaper good only for lining the floor of a birdcage. Same premise applies to those who do the same thing to mainstream modern versions used by Baptists today. IMO, it is equally as dispicable to trash the entire Holman, NASB, and even my personally most disliked MV - the NIV, in an attempt to be right.
Folks, we're talking about God's word, not the National Inquirer.
:applause:Great post O.T.:thumbs: Something you said made me want to share this gem about God's word and Job's place in it:
Job 19:24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
Looks like ol' Job got his wish!!!..............and he never had a CLUE! :thumbs:
I am not sure that the notion of preservation as per the standard KJVO position is entirely provable or correct in all of it's details...........But I do know one thing. The KJVO position has a reverance and respect for God's word I simply do not see amongst the bulk of the detractors. What I detect amongst the KJV detractors is a very cavalier attitude about what is or is not God's word, and it doesnt' matter a fig in their mind whether scores of verses are either legitimate or not. That form of flippancy I have no truck with. The fact that the bone of "I prefer the KJV 'personally' " Just get's my goat more....I'm no idiot, and I don't care what you "prefer" (frankly I think they're lying usually when they say that tell you the truth). But I don't "prefer" being non-chalant about whether numerous verses are either ommitted or added in my copy of the Scripture. That's sheer personal opinion and observation of course.
What I do NOT think is the case, is that God has left us bereft of whether Mark 16:9-20 is his word or Acts 8:37 is his word, or I John 5:7 is his word, and that God has simply said...."meh" go figur it out fo' yo'sef if you feel like it....one way or t'other...doan' really matter .....blah blah.
That matters. God does preserve his word, and if we can erase 11 consecutive verses or any given verse here or there and question it's validity....then we have NO reasonable grounds to suppose that ANY other preserved Scripture is valid or not. THAT'S my problem...And I have serious beef with anyone who thinks they wield the "Word of God" and yet doesn't or can't know with certitude whether there are scores of verses and statements and independent and dependent clauses which are Divine or not.
If you think the last 11 verses of the gospel of Mark are up for debate...than what underlines your faith in John 3:16? Ultimately.....nothing, nil. Ultimately the KJVO detractor inexplicably maintains that not one "jot" nor "tittle" will be erased from the law...but at least 10% of the New Testament is simply up for grabs....it's preposterous.
Soapbox rescinded
Job 19:23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
Job 19:24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
Looks like ol' Job got his wish!!!..............and he never had a CLUE! :thumbs:
I am not sure that the notion of preservation as per the standard KJVO position is entirely provable or correct in all of it's details...........But I do know one thing. The KJVO position has a reverance and respect for God's word I simply do not see amongst the bulk of the detractors. What I detect amongst the KJV detractors is a very cavalier attitude about what is or is not God's word, and it doesnt' matter a fig in their mind whether scores of verses are either legitimate or not. That form of flippancy I have no truck with. The fact that the bone of "I prefer the KJV 'personally' " Just get's my goat more....I'm no idiot, and I don't care what you "prefer" (frankly I think they're lying usually when they say that tell you the truth). But I don't "prefer" being non-chalant about whether numerous verses are either ommitted or added in my copy of the Scripture. That's sheer personal opinion and observation of course.
What I do NOT think is the case, is that God has left us bereft of whether Mark 16:9-20 is his word or Acts 8:37 is his word, or I John 5:7 is his word, and that God has simply said...."meh" go figur it out fo' yo'sef if you feel like it....one way or t'other...doan' really matter .....blah blah.
That matters. God does preserve his word, and if we can erase 11 consecutive verses or any given verse here or there and question it's validity....then we have NO reasonable grounds to suppose that ANY other preserved Scripture is valid or not. THAT'S my problem...And I have serious beef with anyone who thinks they wield the "Word of God" and yet doesn't or can't know with certitude whether there are scores of verses and statements and independent and dependent clauses which are Divine or not.
If you think the last 11 verses of the gospel of Mark are up for debate...than what underlines your faith in John 3:16? Ultimately.....nothing, nil. Ultimately the KJVO detractor inexplicably maintains that not one "jot" nor "tittle" will be erased from the law...but at least 10% of the New Testament is simply up for grabs....it's preposterous.
Soapbox rescinded
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive me for saying "ignorant". How about "misguided", "mistaken" or "misinformed"?
You said,
Call it whatever you want, but it is in no way a true statement.
I retract ignorant. There are much better words.
You talking about Bibles or used cars??? :smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
No,you are quite wrong. Do you believe that man has added anything to God's Holy Word?
That's silly. John 3:16 doesn't have any textual variants like the ending of Mark,for instance. But people do wrongly intertpret John 3:16;that's for sure.
The originals were inspired by the Holy spirit, they were perfect in all that was recorded down, so were inerrant...
we have greek/hebrew texts that are essentially same as those texts, so the versions translated off them are the word of God in english to us, as they will have an infallible witness to them...
NO version is perfect, none are inspired!
We need a perfect saviour, not a perfect translation!
Please let me know when the Kjv/Niv/Nasb etc died for me and rose from the dead!
My faith and hope is in a perfect saviour, not in a perfect bible version!