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!
Paul, regarding the Old Testament Scriptures would have taken the same position as I. Peter certainly did. Again, I challenge you to read 2Peter 1:20,21, and give an objective truthful meaning of it. There are no copies that are inspired. Whether Old or New Testament, Peter says only the words of the writers were inspired. That is not what I say; it is what God says. Take your argument up with God.
No, not necessarily. No man is perfect. To say so would to be to contradict the Bible. See 1John 1:8,10. We all make mistakes. We are fallible, not perfect. Thus through the process of time there have been copyists mistakes--mostly minor spelling mistakes, printing errors, and the such. But sometimes there are greater errors than that. For instance, some times it seems to be as great as the substitution of God for Lord. How do we know which is correct? Remember we have over 5,000 existing manuscripts. Through a prcess of lower textual criticsm (I use the word "lower" for "higher" refers to those who would destroy our Bible), we can compare the manuscripts and see which copyist has made the mistake. The majority is usually the right one. There, of course, are other factors that are considered. I believe that the text has been faithfully preserved in the Received Text, or what has otherwise been termed the Majority Text. It is that text which has been used historically down throughout the ages by the churches. It has a history behind it. Majority means that the majority agrees with it. There is no question in my mind that God has preserved his Word, not in any translation, as the KJV, but in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. The translated languages (KJV English) can never be more accurate than the language from which it is translated. That is an absurd stand to take. Thus the Word is preserved in the original languages, not the translated languages.Originally posted by steaver:
Then the copies of the originals are without error, is this correct?
God Bless!
ps. sorry I don't have much time to respond to all the post and questions to me. I should have some more time this Sunday...very busy daylight to dark!
By logical conclusion then, God has automatically condemned all non-English speaking nations (most of the world) to Hell!!
It's not convincing. No matter which way you cut it, pascha means passover. It is unjust to translate a word that means passover any other way but "passover." That is what the word means. In every other place it is translated that way. They had no reason other than their own bias and political expediency to translate it Easter. It was their deliberate mistake, Will Kinney's lame arguments notwithstanding.Originally posted by steaver:
Another common "error" that seems easy to convince folks of is Easter. But if we take a step back and research all the facts we can find that it is not quite as simple as it appears on the surface. Here is some good research on this "error" as well http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html For those seeking to know the truth of the matter, you should consider all of the history behind "Easter" before you conclude that it is flat out wrong.
God Bless!
If I get what I deserve, it will be more than double the distress. I remain hopeful though, for God promisses to wipe away all tears at the end. I pray you do very well brother at the judgment seat of Christ. Say a prayer from your heart for me and I will as well for you.
The assumption "in English" means "only in English," since you have made no allowance for any other language to have God's "inspired" Word. Where is God's inspired Word? The answer is in the KJV. Correct? Thus, by inference it cannot be in any other translations. I already informed you that most other translations have been translated from the Critical Text which differs greatly from the Received Text from which the KJV was translated. Are you then going to insist that these nations do not have the Word of God? I pity you if you take that stance. Most of the world would then never be saved, or have the chance to be saved.
This can only be an opinion and you have that right to it. But if this is true, then this was an evil act, and if I believed that these translators did their work without regards to what God would think about this "deliberate mistake", then I would not spend another momment teaching or preaching from the KJB. I wouldn't trust any of it.
This can only be an opinion and you have that right to it. But if this is true, then this was an evil act, and if I believed that these translators did their work without regards to what God would think about this "deliberate mistake", then I would not spend another momment teaching or preaching from the KJB. I wouldn't trust any of it.
Perhaps it sounds like I am jumping to conclusions. I can't help but to jump to a conclustion that one would be KJVO, or very close to that position when they would be defending words such as "unicorn" and "Easter." If you defend such errors in translation (and I know you hate the word "errors"), and are not KJVO, then what are you?