-
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!
No Doctrines Are Changed?
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.
I explained the reason why the NIV and NASB (i.e., the Majority Text reading) is right. I think it is obvious that it is right. I don't understand why people are so eager to attack God's word. It is very disappointing and even disgusting to see. I don't understand why people who profess to love God's word spend so much time attacking it. It just doesn't make sense.
Commntaries? Well, are they "W/H" commentaries? I checked my commentaries for my Bible study and found that some of them are W/H, W/H with TR and TR. I realized that they are not perfect because their theology is mixed with the W/H and the TR. Why did you focus on scholar's foolish intelligence than God's wisdom?
The TR theology is more sense than the W/H theology.
No, so far as I know neither Westcott nor Hort wrote any commentaries on Luke. These commentaries are by Bock (far away the best current commnetary on Luke), Morris, and Hendrickson. There are others, these just happen the be the ones I checked.
I didn't. God's wisdom says "auton." That is all we needed to know. The TR changed the reading to autes. The Majority text agrees that "their" is the correct reading. Are you really telling us that the Majority Text reading is wrong here? If so, please let us know for sure, because if you are granting that the Majority text is wrong here, we have some other questions we would like to ask you.
If you think the Majority text is right here, then why do you argue that the KJV followed the correct reading? It seems you are a bit inconsistent, or perhaps not fully informed.
I wasn't aware that the TR had any theology. So far as I konw, it is version of the Greek text. The most recent edition was assembled by Scrivener in 1894 to more closely reflect the KJV. Even in that, Scrivener had problems because there are some passages in the KJV that have no Greek support. Scrivener was the one who pointed out some of the errors in the KJV.
So who was right? The Majority text (and the modern versions)?? Scrivener and the KJV who said that the KJV had changes and errors in it? You who doesn't seem to be exactly clear on what you are saying here? I am confused. Help me understand.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Generalities, Generalities, Generalities. GetOriginally posted by Askjo:
The TR theology is more sense than the W/H theology.
specific. What W/H theology is even
different from a TR theology?
This question is even on topic
Here is a nice TR variation.
In John 18 some TRs have verse 24
"And Annas sent him
bound unto Caiaphas the high Priest.
Other TRs have added to the end of
verse 13: "And Annas sent
Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high Priest.
In the flow of the story, the saying
belongs after verse 13.
Looks to me (yes, I have authority to
expell deamons, to bind up wounds, to
preach to the poor -- not my own authority
but God given authority) like some copyist
took it upon themselves to correct the
mistake of having the phrase in verse 24
so moved in in after 13. At the same time
clearifying who "he" was, namely "Christ".
Now i said all that to say this:
what doctrine changes because of this
change in the words of the Bible?
BTW, before you get on your high horse,
this variation in the Textrus Receptus
is fully documented in REAL copies of
the King James Version side notes.
Ed, please name these TRs for me.Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Generalities, Generalities, Generalities. Get
specific. What W/H theology is even
different from a TR theology?
This question is even on topic
Here is a nice TR variation.
In John 18 some TRs have verse 24
"And Annas sent him
bound unto Caiaphas the high Priest.
Other TRs have added to the end of
verse 13: "And Annas sent
Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high Priest.
In the flow of the story, the saying
belongs after verse 13.
Looks to me (yes, I have authority to
expell deamons, to bind up wounds, to
preach to the poor -- not my own authority
but God given authority) like some copyist
took it upon themselves to correct the
mistake of having the phrase in verse 24
so moved in in after 13. At the same time
clearifying who "he" was, namely "Christ".
Now i said all that to say this:
what doctrine changes because of this
change in the words of the Bible?
BTW, before you get on your high horse,
this variation in the Textrus Receptus
is fully documented in REAL copies of
the King James Version side notes.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I cannot do this.
I read only English.
However, the KJV1611 edition
(not those modern KJVs) contains
footnotes that give some clues
as to what is going on. If they note
a "Gr"* then there is a variation in
the source greek: the Textus Receptus.
So i get my textual variation data
from the margines of the REAL King
James Bible ;(KJB), the real Authorized Version (AV):
the KJV1611 edition.
*If they note a "Or" they are shown variant
translations, for one language is usually
not transferable word-for-word into another
language in all cases.
Didn't they tell you about all this
in your two each 25-minute KJBO briefings?
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Bill, you ask: "I would like to ask If you have actually read the preface to the 1611 KJB?
If you have read it why would you not believe what the translators themselves said.Were they smart enough to do the translating but just to stupid to know they were inspired.
Hi Bill, Yes, I have read it. I do not defend the Preface to the KJB, nor all of their theology, nor the marginal notes. I believe they were the tools God used to bring forth His preserved words and place them in the English language.
They themselves were not inspired, as many accuse us of believing. It is God's true words that are inspired and He has preserved these in the KJB.
Did Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Jude and James know they were inspired? (to use your terminology) Nowhere do they claim to be, yet God used them to give us His inspired words.
Bill>>>" I love the King James Bible.I am strongly KJB preferred.I in no way belittle or devalue it."
No, Bill, you "love" the KJB but don't believe it is the inerrant words of God, and you post a long list of supposed errors found in it.
Is this your idea of tough love?
Will K
If you have read it why would you not believe what the translators themselves said.Were they smart enough to do the translating but just to stupid to know they were inspired.
Hi Bill, Yes, I have read it. I do not defend the Preface to the KJB, nor all of their theology, nor the marginal notes. I believe they were the tools God used to bring forth His preserved words and place them in the English language.
They themselves were not inspired, as many accuse us of believing. It is God's true words that are inspired and He has preserved these in the KJB.
Did Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Jude and James know they were inspired? (to use your terminology) Nowhere do they claim to be, yet God used them to give us His inspired words.
Bill>>>" I love the King James Bible.I am strongly KJB preferred.I in no way belittle or devalue it."
No, Bill, you "love" the KJB but don't believe it is the inerrant words of God, and you post a long list of supposed errors found in it.
Is this your idea of tough love?
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Ed, I am not defending the marginal notes. I have stated this many times before. The TEXT of the King James Bible only is the inspired word of God.
Your explanation of when we get the last Gentile saved then we hasten or speed up the coming of the day of God is contrary to all the other Scripture I posted.
Everything is in God's sovereign hands and the day is already appointed by God almighty. Nothing we do or don't do can change when that day comes. Your mvs and the marginal note of the KJB are wrong. God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.
If your "explanation" contradicts the other Scriptures, it is wrong. Yours is wrong.
Will
Your explanation of when we get the last Gentile saved then we hasten or speed up the coming of the day of God is contrary to all the other Scripture I posted.
Everything is in God's sovereign hands and the day is already appointed by God almighty. Nothing we do or don't do can change when that day comes. Your mvs and the marginal note of the KJB are wrong. God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.
If your "explanation" contradicts the other Scriptures, it is wrong. Yours is wrong.
Will
Here's what Matthew Henry had to say about it. Do you think you are wiser or more holy than he was?
This commentary can be viewed on line so I won't waste the bandwidth but you should get the gist of it. </font>[/QUOTE]Probably not, but I have heard Mathew Henry was a "baby baptiser".
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Can i quote you?
I have some KJVO friends that get all
bent out of shape about a symbol
that is on the cover page of the
New King James Version (nKJV).
Will J. Kinney
Member
Larry posts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------There are no conflicting Bibles.
Larry, this is such a mindblower that you would even say such a thing. You must REALLY have a huge reading comprehension problem.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
would you mind refreshing our memories here and explain for us how one can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God, as your favorite versions teach?
------------------------------------------------------------------------No problem (although a modicum of study could have answered this problem for you without my help). To hasten the day of the Lord might mean to desire earnestly; it may mean to be involved in things such as evangelism which must take place before the DOL. There is no conflict. Peter is not in the least suggesting that the time itself may change.
Acts 3:19-21 do suggest that man's response plays a part in the timing. That is undeniable even in your KJV. Acts 17:31 teaches that the time is fixed.
Larry, "to hasten unto" means we are speeding towards something.
"to earnestly desire" has nothing to do one way or another with either "hasting unto" nor with "hasten, or speed"
And to "speed" something to make it come to us quicker is not the same thing as desiring something nor with "speeding towards something".
The fact that all these seem to be synonymous to you may account for the fact that you see no contradictions in all the various versions.
As for the references in Acts, where do you get the idea that they in any way teach that the day of the Lord may be hastened by anything man may do?
Again, by explaining evangelism as speeding up the coming of the day of God you contradict all the other Scriptures and diminish the sovereignty of God. Where is it ever taught that evangelism will hasten the coming of Christ? Some pastors sermon perhaps, but not from the Bible.
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------There are no conflicting Bibles.
Larry, this is such a mindblower that you would even say such a thing. You must REALLY have a huge reading comprehension problem.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
would you mind refreshing our memories here and explain for us how one can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God, as your favorite versions teach?
------------------------------------------------------------------------No problem (although a modicum of study could have answered this problem for you without my help). To hasten the day of the Lord might mean to desire earnestly; it may mean to be involved in things such as evangelism which must take place before the DOL. There is no conflict. Peter is not in the least suggesting that the time itself may change.
Acts 3:19-21 do suggest that man's response plays a part in the timing. That is undeniable even in your KJV. Acts 17:31 teaches that the time is fixed.
Larry, "to hasten unto" means we are speeding towards something.
"to earnestly desire" has nothing to do one way or another with either "hasting unto" nor with "hasten, or speed"
And to "speed" something to make it come to us quicker is not the same thing as desiring something nor with "speeding towards something".
The fact that all these seem to be synonymous to you may account for the fact that you see no contradictions in all the various versions.
As for the references in Acts, where do you get the idea that they in any way teach that the day of the Lord may be hastened by anything man may do?
Again, by explaining evangelism as speeding up the coming of the day of God you contradict all the other Scriptures and diminish the sovereignty of God. Where is it ever taught that evangelism will hasten the coming of Christ? Some pastors sermon perhaps, but not from the Bible.
Will
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I read it in your KJB.
I still contend that major doctinal differences
come from within the KJB alone.
These differences are a lot more than
any doctrinal differences found between
the KJB and God's Great Wealth of MV
that He has Bountifully put upon us.
So you are saying that a translation is exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?
It is clear that you have never done any translation. If you had done any foreign language work and any kind of translation you would not make such a statement. So I will give you one very simple challenge just to prove a small point. Sometimes ask a Spanish speaking friend to translate the two questions. Come estas? and Como esta? Just a hint: They translate exactly the same but have very different meanings.
God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.
Could you give some supporting evidence for this statement?
So you are saying that the KJV clearly addresses the differences between the two tpes of love used in John 21:15-17? If the KJV is inspired, it must because the Greek text does.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen, Brother Pasotr Larry -- Preach it!
Will J. Kinney
Member
Larry answers Jim: The explanation is simple and involves one of two options (or possibly both): !0 "They" refers to the couple together. Since Joseph and Mary were married, they together offered the sacrifice and Luke, writing a short summary includes the whole process; 2)It is quite likely that Joseph, having been present and likely helping at the birth was also defiled by virtue of coming into contact with the blood of birth. Therefore, they both needed to be cleansed, Mary from the childbirth and Joseph from touching blood.
See how easy that is when you are not out to attack God's word? Belief is always better. And a little study never hurt anyone. You set out with a purpose to attack God's word. It was an unnecessary attack because the text makes perfect sense. All you needed to do was get past your presuppositions and trust that God knew what he was talking about. "
Larry, this fine explanation has only one major problem. It is contrary to the only reference in the Holy Bible where this specific sacrifice is mentioned under O.T. law, where only the woman was to offer the sacrifice and make an atonement for her sins.
IF your guys believe in inerrancy, then are we to conclude that the KJB, and the NKJV are flawed and in error at this point? They are not therefore inerrant? There are no contradictory Bibles?
Will K
See how easy that is when you are not out to attack God's word? Belief is always better. And a little study never hurt anyone. You set out with a purpose to attack God's word. It was an unnecessary attack because the text makes perfect sense. All you needed to do was get past your presuppositions and trust that God knew what he was talking about. "
Larry, this fine explanation has only one major problem. It is contrary to the only reference in the Holy Bible where this specific sacrifice is mentioned under O.T. law, where only the woman was to offer the sacrifice and make an atonement for her sins.
IF your guys believe in inerrancy, then are we to conclude that the KJB, and the NKJV are flawed and in error at this point? They are not therefore inerrant? There are no contradictory Bibles?
Will K