-
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!
NASB is it sound or not?
- Thread starter baptist4u
- Start date
RaptureReady
New Member
You know, we can debate back and forth until Christ comes back. Here is a simple question.
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
God is perfect in everything he does, so therefore, there must be a perfect Word of God today. This is not hard to see. I don't believe that they exist in 5, 10, 20 or more versions that are out there. One reason for that is, none of them say the same thing. There must be one Bible that is perfect. Which one, well, by faith I'll choose the av1611 King James Bible.
Here is another thought. If you disagree with the Bible that I chose, then you or me are wrong.
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
God is perfect in everything he does, so therefore, there must be a perfect Word of God today. This is not hard to see. I don't believe that they exist in 5, 10, 20 or more versions that are out there. One reason for that is, none of them say the same thing. There must be one Bible that is perfect. Which one, well, by faith I'll choose the av1611 King James Bible.
Here is another thought. If you disagree with the Bible that I chose, then you or me are wrong.
HomeBound said, citing Psa. 18:30:
God is perfect in everything he does, so therefore, there must be a perfect Word of God today.
As usual, we are expected to take the KJV-onlyists' word that the verse applies and that they are not abusing it.
Here is another thought. If you disagree with the Bible that I chose, then you or me are wrong.
Yep. You have my sympathy.
God is perfect in everything he does, so therefore, there must be a perfect Word of God today.
As usual, we are expected to take the KJV-onlyists' word that the verse applies and that they are not abusing it.
Here is another thought. If you disagree with the Bible that I chose, then you or me are wrong.
Yep. You have my sympathy.
Does that include the 1611AV Aprocrypha?
I don't use the 1611AV because it contains the Apocrypha which is NOT the Word of God.
Who then is wrong?
Also what does that make the 1769 revision which most KJVO folks use having several hundred word differences between itself and the 1611AV, some of which change the meaning of the sentence.
HankD
RaptureReady
New Member
I don't use the Aprocrypha either. I don't believe it to be God's word.
As far as the revisions you are talking about, the only thing that I know is of the spelling and grammatical mistakes. I don't believe that a word meaning was or has been changed since 1611.
Ransom:
I'm not asking you to accept my word. But, don't it make since that since God is perfect, He would allow us to have a perfect Bible today, especially in the last days? If there is no perfect Bible, how can you know that you have perfect salvation?
As far as the revisions you are talking about, the only thing that I know is of the spelling and grammatical mistakes. I don't believe that a word meaning was or has been changed since 1611.
Ransom:
I'm not asking you to accept my word. But, don't it make since that since God is perfect, He would allow us to have a perfect Bible today, especially in the last days? If there is no perfect Bible, how can you know that you have perfect salvation?
HomeBound:
But, don't it make since that since God is perfect, He would allow us to have a perfect Bible today, especially in the last days?
Why should I accept the KJV-only assumption that a "perfect Bible" means a particular inerrant translation, copy, version, or edition?
But, don't it make since that since God is perfect, He would allow us to have a perfect Bible today, especially in the last days?
Why should I accept the KJV-only assumption that a "perfect Bible" means a particular inerrant translation, copy, version, or edition?
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
In all fairness, the translators included the Apocrypha between the OT and the NT was fully aware that it was not Scripture. Its value was that it shed some light on the life and thoughts of pre-Christian Judaism.
IMO, it is no different than the inclusion of a chapter on The Greatest Archaeological Discoveries of the Twentieth Century and their effects on the Bible. I know this is not inspired Scripture; but I also know that I may gain insight from reading it although it may not be accurate in every instance.
I don't think anyone was wrong except those who would attach divine inspiration to the Apocrypha. I, for one, have no problem that the AV 1611 contained these writings anymore than I have a problem having a Bible today with all the extra study aids.
neal4christ
New Member
You ignore a big problem: the Rheims Bible came BEFORE the KJV. So using your logic, the KJV is the corrupt Bible passed off to look like the real thing, the Rheims Bible. Seems your arguments are backfiring on you. Why can you not look at objective facts and draw conclusions from them, rather than being willingly ignorant? Lies and invalid logical arguments promulgated by the radical KJVOs do great harm to the name of Christ and His written Word.
Neal
Archangel7
New Member
Check out these examples of differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV's. All of them involve changes in words and meaning.
Archangel7
New Member
In all fairness, the translators included the Apocrypha between the OT and the NT was fully aware that it was not Scripture. Its value was that it shed some light on the life and thoughts of pre-Christian Judaism. </font>[/QUOTE]This is true; however, the Apocrypha must have had some sort of authoritative status as Scripture within the 17th C. Church of England. Otherwise, why would the lectionary apparatus printed at the front of the 1611 KJV include lessons from the Apocrypha to be read in public worship? For that matter, why would the Church of England even bother with the time, effort, and expense of translating and printing the Apocrypha in the first place?
KJV Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
ASV Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:
NIV Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
NIB Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
NAS Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
NAU Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
RSV Romans 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
NRS Romans 8:16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
NKJ Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
WEB Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself testifieth with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
DRA Romans 8:16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.
DBY Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God.
BBE Romans 8:16 The Spirit is witness with our spirit that we are children of God:
YLT Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God;
Archangel7
New Member
I have to disagree with this notion that only one Bible version can be "perfect." Part of the problem might stem from the definition of "perfect." The word "perfect" has two meanings: (1) "flawless, incapable of being improved;" and (2) "completely suited for its particular purpose." No English Bible translation is "perfect" in the first sense, but many different English Bible translations are "perfect" in the second sense.
I have to disagree with this notion that only one Bible version can be "perfect." Part of the problem might stem from the definition of "perfect." The word "perfect" has two meanings: (1) "flawless, incapable of being improved;" and (2) "completely suited for its particular purpose." No English Bible translation is "perfect" in the first sense, but many different English Bible translations are "perfect" in the second sense. </font>[/QUOTE]Well said.... in fact, "perfectly" said.
Bartholomew
New Member
If you read the 39 articles of faith of the Chruch of England, you will see why:
Besdies, why does the fact that the first printing of the AV included the appocrypha prove the wording of the cannonical books is in error? It really does not follow, you know...
Here is an amazing thing, Baptists defending the errors of the Church of England, those who persecuted (including King James), imprisoned and martyred our spiritual forefathers .
http://www.geocities.com/genebrooks/baptists.html
HankD
[ February 25, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
http://www.geocities.com/genebrooks/baptists.html
HankD
[ February 25, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
Archangel asked:
Otherwise, why would the lectionary apparatus printed at the front of the 1611 KJV include lessons from the Apocrypha to be read in public worship?
Bartholomew answered:
If you read the 39 articles of faith of the Chruch of England, you will see why:
Why are the KJV-onlyists trying to defend the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Bible instead of condemn it?
Otherwise, why would the lectionary apparatus printed at the front of the 1611 KJV include lessons from the Apocrypha to be read in public worship?
Bartholomew answered:
If you read the 39 articles of faith of the Chruch of England, you will see why:
Which proves nothing, because I could say the same thing about the works of Francis Schaeffer. But what would the KJV-onlyists think if I published a KJV edition with The God Who Is There between the testaments, and started reading a chapter from it every Sunday?
Why are the KJV-onlyists trying to defend the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Bible instead of condemn it?
AV Defender
New Member
I could,and will ask a similar qiuestion;why are poly-versionist defending(or ignoring) the fact of the Apocrypha was in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts as inspired(by the Pope)holy scripture?
Why wasn't these books included in the "better" bibles from 1881 on??
Because they are not Scripture and, unlike the KJV, never were in the modern translations. The Alexandrian texts are only a contributor to the textual process; they are not the sole factor in that process. Furthermore, the textual process is concerned with the NT text, not the OT or intertestamental text.
Because the MVs only only translations of Scripture not of anything else.
JYD said:
I could,and will ask a similar qiuestion;
Yes, you could, but merely turning the question around proves nothing, except that you know how to turn questions around. [personal attack deleted]
why are poly-versionist defending(or ignoring) the fact of the Apocrypha was in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts as inspired(by the Pope)holy scripture?
Since this question forces me to assume a false premise (that the Apocrypha is being defended and/or ignored), it is, again, invalid on its face.
Why wasn't these books included in the "better" bibles from 1881 on??
Because they aren't Scripture, and including them between the Testaments would make these Bibles worse, not better.
[ February 26, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
I could,and will ask a similar qiuestion;
Yes, you could, but merely turning the question around proves nothing, except that you know how to turn questions around. [personal attack deleted]
why are poly-versionist defending(or ignoring) the fact of the Apocrypha was in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts as inspired(by the Pope)holy scripture?
Since this question forces me to assume a false premise (that the Apocrypha is being defended and/or ignored), it is, again, invalid on its face.
Why wasn't these books included in the "better" bibles from 1881 on??
Because they aren't Scripture, and including them between the Testaments would make these Bibles worse, not better.
[ February 26, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]