Kinda like the Hebrew OT, wherein we read of the adulterer and murderer King ('man after God's own heart') David, whose second son, Solomon (who was, apparently, of the opinion that folks should do as I say, and not as I do). And, lets not forget the oldest 10 sons of Israel who (in the case of their younger brother Joseph) were liars and deceivers. Of course we dare not forget old Moses (who was a murderer and deceiver), nor Abraham (who was a deceiver when it came to his wife's true identity) and ditto for his son Isaac.
-
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!
On Bibles
- Thread starter Ryan.Samples
- Start date
Kinda like the Hebrew OT, wherein we read of the adulterer and murderer King ('man after God's own heart') David, whose second son, Solomon (who was, apparently, of the opinion that folks should do as I say, and not as I do). And, lets not forget the oldest 10 sons of Israel who (in the case of their younger brother Joseph) were liars and deceivers. Of course we dare not forget old Moses (who was a murderer and deceiver), nor Abraham (who was a deceiver when it came to his wife's true identity) and ditto for his son Isaac.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The Apostle Paul tells us: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. [Romans 15:4]
This is one of the reasons why I personally love to delve into the history behind not only people and events that are specifically mentioned in the OT (which, as I understand it, was "the scriptures" to which Paul was referring in this partcular passage), but also in those "400 Silent Years" and in the NT. IMHO, one cannot fully understand the "why's" behind the "what's" and/or the "who's" of God's Word unless he/she spends some time in serious background research of the lives and times of both the people and/or events that are mentioned. (IOW, WHY did someone do or say what he/she did? WHY did something happen?
Of course, this principle can (and should) also apply to both people and/or events not only during biblical times (both OT & NT), but also to both people and/or events in post-biblical times (c. AD 100 [or whenever you believe that the Apostle John died]) right up to and including this very day.
IMHO, at lot of us (me included BTW) would probably be lots wiser and less prone to be fooled by a lot of what's in reality just mere "hot air" and/or speculation--whether or not it comes from some of our pulpits, or in the media (both left and right).
LOL!
Nothing coming out of your continual drumbeat will change the facts. That's for sure.
I told you to look at the Preface to the NIV and look at other material on the NIV website. It does not purport to be a dynamic equivalent translation.
You're gonna' cause me to split my gut again...LOL!!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Careful Amy. G. You are flirting with being labeled a {gasp
raying:} KJVO#5.:smilewinkgrin:Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Here We Go....!
(GASP!!!:laugh: I Am One Too!) and if you think about it...ALL the "penman" who God used to pen or write His Word "In the Inspired (and perfect)originals" were sinners just like all of us. Just as He could use men back then to put His Word in printed form, He continued to use fallible men down through the ages to transmit His Word while maintaining its purity as He preserved it from one generation to the next. It is the perfect Word of the perfect God. Its purity and perfection is a prerequisite. It is, after all, the Word of God. Now...I know, because I've been around here awhile, that many in here would label that notion nothing short of preposterous and post miles and miles of evidence (so-called) to the contrary. I can't even begin to hope that I am smart enough to refute any of those voluminous posts that would spring up to refute/rebuke me. I'm not even going to try. But I believe what I believe based on the evidence that I accept just as those who take the opposite position do. I don't even profess to understand how God accomplished His work of Inspiration AND Preservation as He moved the men He used. I just know He did and that is good enough for me because the end result of the faith that I have is that I believe I hold a perfect, error-free copy of God's Word in my hand that I can have complete and absolute confidence in. That will sustain me all the way to Heaven and help me to sleep peacefully here as well!:sleeping_2:
Bro.Greg
Careful Amy. G. You are flirting with being labeled a {gasp
(GASP!!!:laugh: I Am One Too!) and if you think about it...ALL the "penman" who God used to pen or write His Word "In the Inspired (and perfect)originals" were sinners just like all of us. Just as He could use men back then to put His Word in printed form, He continued to use fallible men down through the ages to transmit His Word while maintaining its purity as He preserved it from one generation to the next. It is the perfect Word of the perfect God. Its purity and perfection is a prerequisite. It is, after all, the Word of God. Now...I know, because I've been around here awhile, that many in here would label that notion nothing short of preposterous and post miles and miles of evidence (so-called) to the contrary. I can't even begin to hope that I am smart enough to refute any of those voluminous posts that would spring up to refute/rebuke me. I'm not even going to try. But I believe what I believe based on the evidence that I accept just as those who take the opposite position do. I don't even profess to understand how God accomplished His work of Inspiration AND Preservation as He moved the men He used. I just know He did and that is good enough for me because the end result of the faith that I have is that I believe I hold a perfect, error-free copy of God's Word in my hand that I can have complete and absolute confidence in. That will sustain me all the way to Heaven and help me to sleep peacefully here as well!:sleeping_2:
Bro.Greg
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
My problem with this argument is the notion that God only did this until 1611 and then stopped. Why would every generation of English speakers since the mid 17th century be denied the word of God in their vernacular? The English Bible was regularly updated until 1611. It doesn't make any sense to me that succeeding generations would be denied what every previous generation had.
Last edited by a moderator:
From the days of Moses, God periodically inspired individuals to pen His word for about 2,500 years. Then, He stopped for 400 years.
When He sent His Son, He also inspired individuals to pen His word for a short period of time. Then, He stopped, when the book of Revelation was written. According to Christian beliefs, it's been close to 1,900 years since God last inspired someone to record His words.
God promised to preserve His word. In studying the historical progression of the Bible for English speaking peoples, we see centuries unfold. Large expanses of time lapsed between the various mile markers along the path to the KJB of 1611. May 2011 marked 400 years since the first press run of the KJB.
It took approximatly 270 years before a serious challenge to the premise that the KJB is the word of God arose. Or, 290 years, if the date of the ASB is used.
How do we calculate generations? Is the time factor 20, 40, or a 100 years?
How many years lapsed between the writing of Revelation (95 AD) and the time the common English speaking person could read the complete Bible in his vernacular? ( 1.Belonging to the country of one's birth; one's own by birth or nature; native; indigenous; -- now used chiefly of language; as, English is our vernacular language. http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,vernacular )
I realize that you put a qualifier in preceding your comment on "succeedng generations". My points are:
1. As an English speaking person, I can still read the KJB, especially after the typeface was changed and spelling standardized in later editions, during the 1700's. Can also read my copy of the 1901 ASB, printed in 1928.
How many succeeding generations since those dates?
2: When reading any of the MV's (I have several) there are words that require the use of a dictionary for a precise definition. However, with those, as with the KJB, the context often gives a more precise meaning. Simply because I don't understand some of the words (in any publication) does not mean it isn't written in my vernacular.
To grow in maturity (understanding) I have to study, regardless of the subject matter. To become proficient in woodworking required study. What is a scarf joint? It isn't a head covering or worn around the neck.
Where in the scriptures, any version, does it say that study (work) isn't needed to rightly divide the word of God?
3. The ASB publication marked the material starting point of opening the flood gates of non-Catholic English Bibles. How many generations have passed since 1901? How many different "new translations" have come to market? How many updated versions/translations/editions has been needed to provide "what every previous generation had."?
One Bible translation was sufficient for most Baptists (in particular) for approx. 350 years. In the last 50 years, and especially since 1984, Bibles don't keep up with the "vernacular" if not updated every few (5-10) years. Is this God preserving His word for all generations? Or, is it secular publishing houses eeking out every cent of profit at the direction of their marketing departments? Even if it means producing gender neutral versions or versions with the sin of sodomy removed. (From what I understand there are now some versions that have omitted the word "sodomy". If that is an error on my part, please correct.)
The KJB is the one that I read and study. Others, I use in the same manner as commentaries whether reaching back in time to the Geneva or forward with the ASB, NIV, Holman, etc. and the vast list of choices found at Biblegateway.
In closing, one point that's rarely ever mentioned in these Bible version debates is the influence of Holy Spirit being reflected in the version choices people make. God promised to preserve His word. I believe that promise. His word is found in Bibles, on billboards, tee shirts, and more. I also believe that prayers for guidance has led me to stay with the KJB despite all the challenges to do otherwise.
Proverbs 2: KJB
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The plethora of new versions appearing in the last 50 years or so may not be an attempt to produce a better translation but simply to produce a source of income. And then of course with each new version there is a seemingly endless number of "devotional" and "study" Bibles.
Sadly it seems that some of the recent revisions of the newer versions is a movement to a "gender neutral" Bible. In my opinion this trend is a blasphemous disregard for the doctrine of Divine inspiration of the writers of Scripture.
Sadly it seems that some of the recent revisions of the newer versions is a movement to a "gender neutral" Bible. In my opinion this trend is a blasphemous disregard for the doctrine of Divine inspiration of the writers of Scripture.
All the typeface in the KJV was not changed in 1769. The 1769 Oxford and all other KJV editions in the 1700's still had a character that was shaped like "f" for a long "s." Thus, in those KJV editions "sin" looked like "fin", "wise" looked the same as "wife," etc. Those thousands of words in the KJV with this "f" for a long "s" were not changed until after the 1810 Oxford edition.
All spelling was not standardized in the 1769 Oxford. The 1769 Oxford spelled a number of words more than one way, and it still had several non-standard English spellings.
The 1769 Oxford still had the following spellings: "houshold" or "houfhold" (Gen. 18:19), "falsly" (Gen. 21:23), "foles" (Gen. 32:15), "housholds" (Gen. 42:33), "fole" (Gen. 49:11), "waggon" (Num. 7:3), "grashoppers" (Num. 13:33), "travel" (Num. 20:14), "brakedst" (Deut. 10:2), "milstone" (Deut. 24:6), "befal" (Deut. 32:3), etc.
The editing or standardization of spelling was inconsistently done in 1769, and the spelling was later inconsistently updated again.
Perhaps you made your assertion or opinion general enough to be generally true. Likely you are referring to English-speaking Baptists, and not Baptists who speak other languages.
Baptists did not consider the KJV the best translation when it first came out in 1611. Baptists [along with Congregationalists and some other believers] pointed out examples of Episcopal bias in the KJV, and a good number of them preferred or stayed with the earlier Geneva Bible. A number of believers and some churches continued to use their Geneva Bibles long after 1611.
Except for the laws in the 1600's that stopped the printing of the Geneva Bible in England and then the importing and selling of copies printed in the Netherlands and for the Act of Uniformity, many Baptists would probably have kept using the Geneva Bible.
Most early Baptist Confessions of faith did not advocate use of one English translation, and they actually appealed to Acts 14:23 as it had been translated in the Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles for their congregational view of church government. In a 1611 Confession of Faith thought to have been written by Baptist Thomas Helwys, Article 21 noted “that these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament (1 Timothy 3:2-7, Titus 1:6-9, Acts 6:3-4) by election and approbation of that church or congregation whereof they are members (Acts 6:3-4 and 14:23) (Lumpkin,p. 122). The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320). Baptists in England in the 1600’s had based at least a portion of their doctrine of church government on the original language text at Acts 14:23 with clear support from the Latin translation of Erasmus, the Latin translation of Beza, and the pre-1611 English Bibles.
Did all Baptists in the late 1700's and in the 1800's use only the KJV? Likely a good number of Baptists especially in America may have used Wesley's Bible [the New Testament first printed in 1755], which was popular in America especially among Methodists. Perhaps you are unaware that Baptists and other believers produced a revision of the KJV in 1842.
This revision was reprinted a number of years, and I have seen one copy printed in 1846 or 1847 that had "Baptist Bible" on its binding.
Matthew 3:6 in the 1842 English Bible
And were immersed by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
Later there was the 1866 American Bible Union Version that was popular among at least some Baptists.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Awesome Answer...!
Oldtimer....I could not even possibly have said it better than that.
Bro.Roger...I personally believe that dear brother Oldtimer has given a reasonable and accurate response to your objection...and respectful at that.:thumbs:
The only thing I will add is that I have heard many times that the English language of the Elizabethian or Shakespearian era was at it's "zenith" and that, type and spelling updates excepted, it has all been downhill from there. I don't want to read a Bible (so-called ) that is written in the common english vernacular of our day. If we start patterning our Bibles after the "updated" english of our day (and they already have!) it may start sounding and reading like gutter trash-talk. Just a quick trip through the land of TV sitcoms and reality (so-called) shows OR the vernacular of "texting" is enough to tell me that. You watch....sooner or later somebody is going to invent a "text" version of the Bible. Year by year...this once wonderful language we call English is being steadily dismantled and perverted. I'll stick with the old Bible. It is safe, tested, tried, and proven...and I might add, blessed by God. All of that is clearly undeniable. I agree with Old Regular that the apparent motive for most of these MV's is $$$$ profit. The only true source of Biblical wisdom and knowledge is the instruction given the believer by the Holy Spirit as we daily study and search the scriptures. The KJV will never be out-of-date. We have plenty of study resources to assist us (moreso than ANY previous generation) in our study of the scriptures. This plethora of MV's just adds confusion to the body of Christ.
Bro.Greg:type:
Oldtimer....I could not even possibly have said it better than that.
Bro.Roger...I personally believe that dear brother Oldtimer has given a reasonable and accurate response to your objection...and respectful at that.:thumbs:
The only thing I will add is that I have heard many times that the English language of the Elizabethian or Shakespearian era was at it's "zenith" and that, type and spelling updates excepted, it has all been downhill from there. I don't want to read a Bible (so-called ) that is written in the common english vernacular of our day. If we start patterning our Bibles after the "updated" english of our day (and they already have!) it may start sounding and reading like gutter trash-talk. Just a quick trip through the land of TV sitcoms and reality (so-called) shows OR the vernacular of "texting" is enough to tell me that. You watch....sooner or later somebody is going to invent a "text" version of the Bible. Year by year...this once wonderful language we call English is being steadily dismantled and perverted. I'll stick with the old Bible. It is safe, tested, tried, and proven...and I might add, blessed by God. All of that is clearly undeniable. I agree with Old Regular that the apparent motive for most of these MV's is $$$$ profit. The only true source of Biblical wisdom and knowledge is the instruction given the believer by the Holy Spirit as we daily study and search the scriptures. The KJV will never be out-of-date. We have plenty of study resources to assist us (moreso than ANY previous generation) in our study of the scriptures. This plethora of MV's just adds confusion to the body of Christ.
Bro.Greg:type:
You may not realize that you are using similar assertions to what Roman Catholics used against the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.
In their preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament, this is stated: "The Scriptures have been falsely and heretically translated into the vulgar tongues, and sundry other ways sacrilegiously abused and so given to the people to read."
They referred to "profane translations, and erroneous mens mere fantasies, for the pure and blessed word of truth."
They claimed that the Protestant translators "frame and sign the phrases of holy Scriptures after the form of profane writers, sticking not, for the same to supply, add, alter or diminish as freely as if they translated Livy, Virgil, or Terrence."
Perhaps you should read the preface of the 1582 Rheims New Testament.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The opinions about the 'zenith' of English and all the reasons why God stopped giving the succeeding generations His word in their vernacular, are like my view that God continues to preserve His word, just opinions.
In my opinion God want His people to have His word in a language that it understandable. He doesn't want to people to misunderstand His word because word meanings have changed.
It is also wrong, IMO, to paint all modern translations with one brush. I am a firm believer is the superiority of the traditional text body. I also am a firm believer in, wherever possible, formal equivalence.
Fortunately there is at least one modern option that formally translates the traditional text body in English that is not 400 years old.
The KJV is great for long time users, but I live in a country where KJV Bible words are meaningless.
One example. I love the KJV word 'careful' from Philippians 2. But if I quote 'be careful for nothing' folks here think 'Oh, the Bible says I don't have to be careful whatever I do!'
We need a faithful translation in a language that is not foreign to our hearers ears and I think we have a God who can give us a faithful translation in our language.
There were many English translations before 1611. Was God in those translations?
In my opinion God want His people to have His word in a language that it understandable. He doesn't want to people to misunderstand His word because word meanings have changed.
It is also wrong, IMO, to paint all modern translations with one brush. I am a firm believer is the superiority of the traditional text body. I also am a firm believer in, wherever possible, formal equivalence.
Fortunately there is at least one modern option that formally translates the traditional text body in English that is not 400 years old.
The KJV is great for long time users, but I live in a country where KJV Bible words are meaningless.
One example. I love the KJV word 'careful' from Philippians 2. But if I quote 'be careful for nothing' folks here think 'Oh, the Bible says I don't have to be careful whatever I do!'
We need a faithful translation in a language that is not foreign to our hearers ears and I think we have a God who can give us a faithful translation in our language.
There were many English translations before 1611. Was God in those translations?
Stating the obvious here. O.R. : you need to actually make a study and come up with rational conclusions. The NIV is not gender neutral and all the baggage that that term implies. The Old Testament prophets,Apostles 9disciples are still men. In the book of Proverbs the person being addressed is still "son". God is never turned into a He/She deal etc.etc.
Read for yourself rather than basing your errant ideas on sensationalistic rags.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I would have to ask if the Geneva Bible and the KJV added confusion to the body of Christ since there were already 3-4 good English translations.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Just took a look at the origins of the early English translations as shown in the Thompson Chain Ref. Bible. It is remarkable how God moved to provide men willing to face the wrath of Rome to bring us a Bible in the "vulgar" tongue!
That's right. And that means in day-to-day language of the common person. Bible translations need to be in the vernacular. That was the aim of Purvery,Luther,Tyndale and any real translator. The KJV revisers would be astounded and not a little angry to see the stubborn mindset of KJVO folks of today...Miles Smith in particular.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
According to Dr. Bob there are five {5} species of KJVO folks! I assume he is correct.
