1. 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!

My Problems With MV's

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Baptist4life, Nov 29, 2008.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 10
  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    After being given three opportunities, you have not yet retracted your biased implication that "divergent and confusing readings" are a problem unique to MVs (nor acknowledged the use of the derisive term.) I believe you recognize now that your OP was based upon an untrue proposition, but refuse to publically admit it.

    I have made no such "demand"; all I did was ask you a "why" question (notice the puncuation).

    You keep telling us you like the KJV but you haven't given us one objective reason; you have only attempted to justify it by presenting these bogus problems with the "MVs". You must be obsessing with Rippon again, since I never suggested that the KJV was too difficult for me, nor have I insinuated that those that do use the KJV lack understanding. By the way, are those three demands?

    Actually, I do use the KJV every day. That this thread was defective and non-productive from the start has been my position.
     
    #61 franklinmonroe, Dec 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2008
  2. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    84
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Welcome "because of grace" , but let me warn you, you're about to get "ganged up" on.:thumbs:
     
    #62 Baptist4life, Dec 1, 2008
  3. mcdirector

    mcdirector Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    11
    Compared to the foundation of the world, the AV is pretty modern . . .
     
    #63 mcdirector, Dec 1, 2008
  4. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well welcome to the BB because of grace.( And indeed it's because of grace alone that we are in the Beloved.)

    I don't want to start out criticizing a new member's views.However,I just can't let your statements stand.

    If the KJV never came into existence don't you think God would have had the wherewithal to provide His people with His Word?And aren't you aware of the Geneva Bible which came out before the KJV and Bishop's Bible?The KJV wasn't the accepted version until almost half a century after its initial publication.

    Bible scholars need to improve on existing versions because languages change and new finds are discovered.

    You do realize that the KJV was written by mortal men,right?The New Testament committee depended largely on the efforts of William Tyndale who was killed in 1536.Around 76% of what WT did in the OT was used by the KJV team.

    I'll let others tackle your other mistaken views.
     
    #64 Rippon, Dec 1, 2008
  5. because of grace

    because of grace New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    The version debate is just another proof that modern christianity is seeking to please man and not God. Only God knows which one of us is right and when we get to heaven we will find out. But dont worry I will be too busy worshipping Him to say i told you so.
     
    #65 because of grace, Dec 1, 2008
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    One note from me. It is the King James Version and not Bible.....It is just a version. An Anglican version at that.

    Yes, I use the KJVersion almost exclusively in the pulpit, with many corrections along the way.

    Cheers,

    Jim

    This thread has a certain circumlocution about it, innit? Wait, innit is prolly an English word you never heard about.
     
    #66 Jim1999, Dec 1, 2008
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trust me, it was tough giving up the NASB, but the TNIV proved more readable and accurate, at least to me.

    I hope you can get a copy to investigate it for yourself. There are a lot of great resources out there to help you deal with some of the misgivings others have seen in the TNIV.

    I've gotten passed them, and so can you.
     
    #67 TCGreek, Dec 1, 2008
  8. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    ROTFL - I guess you haven't studied your translational history, have you? There have been version debates for years even before the KJV. It's proof of nothing, honestly.

    And I think that it's pretty insulting to say that those men who worked hard on translating the Word of God as faithfully as they could did it just to please man. We have one Bible translator on this board and I know that the hearts of most of these men is to provide a faithful translation to the people who will receive it. They work for the glory of God and not themselves. What you say is a slap in their face, honestly.
     
    #68 annsni, Dec 1, 2008
  9. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    God in His sovereignty chose the Bible to be written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is no version debate about what God chose.
     
    #69 gb93433, Dec 1, 2008
  10. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Hmmm - I've not seen one verse that's been removed that deals with baptism after salvation. Can you back that up?
     
    #70 annsni, Dec 1, 2008
  11. because of grace

    because of grace New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    what abouit the versions that remove the need for salvation prior to baptism, or where Joseph is referred to as the Father of our Lord? Are they casting doubt on the Virgin birth or are they just making the Bible easier to understand?
     
    #71 because of grace, Dec 1, 2008
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The gent do make a valid point, here! :thumbs:

    Ed
     
    #72 EdSutton, Dec 1, 2008
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Welcome to the BB, because of grace.
    Perhaps you are mixing your verses together here? I see that Psalm 12:6 uses the plural "words" (no singular terms here) and Psalm 119 states that God's word is "settled" (not preserved) and that takes place in "heaven" (not earth) --
    Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:7)

    For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)​
     
    #73 franklinmonroe, Dec 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2008
  14. because of grace

    because of grace New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acts 8:37 is not found in the NIV. Where the eunuch professes Christ as Savior as the pre requisite for baptism. Can an infant be saved? Of course not but they can be baptized if you have no doctrine to teach them otherwise
     
    #74 because of grace, Dec 1, 2008
  15. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Can you give me the references?

    I can imagine that the verse that refers to Joseph as being Jesus' father, he was. Just as my father is my father. No - neither one are our fathers through blood but they are our adopted fathers.

    But I'd still like to see the verses in question to be able to address them.
     
    #75 annsni, Dec 1, 2008
  16. because of grace

    because of grace New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not have the reference off the top of my head for Joseph as his "Father" but Acts 8:37 is the refernce about infant baptism. It also seems to be missing from the NLT as well as the Message Bible
     
    #76 because of grace, Dec 1, 2008
  17. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Acts 8:37 is not in original manuscripts.

    In the geneology in Matthew 1 is listed the lineage of Joseph.....then in verse 16 it reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #77 Jim1999, Dec 1, 2008
  18. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Ahh - gotcha on the Acts 8:37 verse. I have it in my ESV, NIV and NKJV. The reason that it's notated as questionable though, is because Erasmus, who was the one who translated what would become the Textus Receptus, only had one Greek manuscript with it (it was not in any of the others) but it was in the Latin Vulgate, so he included it in the text. It is in no text that is dated earlier than the 6th century. It is important to note that the Majority Text does not include this verse.

    It is helpful to actually look at the "Modern Versions" to see if a verse was, in fact, removed from the book or not instead of taking someone's word for it. It is also helpful to do some study on the heritage of a verse to see why someone might notate something about a verse just as Erasmus did when he was making his own translation.

    In addition, the one verse in the Bible (Acts 8:37) is not the only support of believer's baptism. In addition to that verse (which has a questionable heritage), we also find the idea of believing then being baptized in Mark 16:16, Acts 8:12-13, Acts 18:8. If "modern version" were to make the idea of infant baptism OK, don't you think they would have done something with these other verses too?

    I'd highly recommend that you do some of your own study rather. You can find out so much more truth than if you listen to a few who deceive.
     
    #78 annsni, Dec 1, 2008
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely you are not suggesting the eunuch was an infant are you? That verse offers no support for infant baptism.

    Furthermore, the fact that something is "not found" does not mean it was taken out. It may mean that it was never there to begin with.
     
    #79 Pastor Larry, Dec 1, 2008
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

    And may I suggest that you make sure you are wearing your "hard-hat" at least for this subject. :tonofbricks:

    :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #80 EdSutton, Dec 1, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 10
Loading...