Sovereignty???

[MB]

He quoted from the ESV:

2 Samuel 24:1 ESV
24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Samuel+24:1

The ESV is a very respected translation used as the standard by many Churches.

The ESV is a well known Calvist version written to support calvinism just like Jehovah's Witnesses you have your own.
MB

 

[MB]

Not much of a theologian,are you? So in your estimation God has contingency plans. That's a pathetic view of the Almighty.

Not as pathetic as your's obviously.
MB

 

[jbh28]

The ESV is a well known Calvist version written to support calvinism just like Jehovah's Witnesses you have your own.
MB

Well that's pretty low and not true. It wasn't translated by just Calvinists. It wasn't written to support Calvinism. The NWT was written by JW's for their own purpose, but not the ESV. This is totally uncalled for.

 

[MB]

Well that's pretty low and not true. It wasn't translated by just Calvinists. It wasn't written to support Calvinism. The NWT was written by JW's for their own purpose, but not the ESV. This is totally uncalled for.

What is uncalled for is your saying it was uncalled for. The NA 27 openly admits it was taken from a discredited text in the introduction, if you'd care to read it. The ESV was taken from the NA 27. Need I say more? If you don't have one you can oder it on line at Amazon I paid $10.00 for mine used.
MB

 

[jbh28]

What is uncalled for is your saying it was uncalled for. The NA 27 openly admits it was taken from a discredited text in the introduction, if you'd care to read it. The ESV was taken from the NA 27. Need I say more? If you don't have one you can oder it on line at Amazon I paid $10.00 for mine used.
MB

then all modern versions are "calvinist" versions then? But you said it was written by calvinist now are you saying that the NA27 was the calvinist part?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The LCMS Lutheran Synod has made the ESV it's official text. They're certainly not Calvinists.

 

[MB]

then all modern versions are "calvinist" versions then? But you said it was written by calvinist now are you saying that the NA27 was the calvinist part?

Your brother Calvinist the Catholics are who over see's the publishing of every new version. Catholics invented Calvinism.
MB

 

[jbh28]

Your brother Calvinist the Catholics are who over see's the publishing of every new version. Catholics invented Calvinism.
MB

you keep backpedaling any more you might fall down. You said the ESV was a calvinistic translation written by Calvinists and now you are off to Catholicism which has nothing to do with Reformed theology. Why don't you just apologize for you false statement.

 

[MB]

The LCMS Lutheran Synod has made the ESV it's official text. They're certainly not Calvinists.

Sure they are since they preach nearly the same Augustinian doctrine.
MB

 

[glfredrick]

Sure they are since they preach nearly the same Augustinian doctrine.
MB

Can I assume that you prefer the KJV?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

What is uncalled for is your saying it was uncalled for. The NA 27 openly admits it was taken from a discredited text in the introduction, if you'd care to read it. The ESV was taken from the NA 27. Need I say more? If you don't have one you can oder it on line at Amazon I paid $10.00 for mine used.
MB

I’ve got my UBS4 (very close to the NA 27) in front of me—I’m reading the intro & I’m having a hard time finding where it clearly says it is taken from a “discredited text”! I know such a notion was never discussed in Greek class---but maybe I’m missing something---exactly what page of the intro are you referring to?
And would you recommend the KJV over the ESV for Greek accuracy?

 

[David Lamb]

Your brother Calvinist the Catholics are who over see's the publishing of every new version. Catholics invented Calvinism.
MB

I'd be interested to know how, according to you, "Catholics invented Calvinism".

 

[MB]

I’ve got my UBS4 (very close to the NA 27) in front of me—I’m reading the intro & I’m having a hard time finding where it clearly says it is taken from a “discredited text”! I know such a notion was never discussed in Greek class---but maybe I’m missing something---exactly what page of the intro are you referring to?
And would you recommend the KJV over the ESV for Greek accuracy?

I don't have a UBS4 so I can't tell you if that says anything about it or not. If you have an NA-27 You can find the truth of this in it's introduction. The copy I have is in English and German. The united Bible society may not have the same introduction. In my copy the introduction also explains the Critical Apparatus used to translate it from mostly the Westscott and Hort's Greek New Testament. They also state that this text was invaluable in it's translation.
MB

 

[MB]

I'd be interested to know how, according to you, "Catholics invented Calvinism".

That's simple. Originally it was Called Augustinianism and was the doctrine of the Catholic Church to begin with. Augustine was a Catholic as claimed by the RCC and has now reached Saint hood for his contrabution. Reformers are called so, because Calvin and others with him attempted to reform the Catholic Church using "Augustinianism" now called Calvinism. Calvin didn't like the Catholic's switch to universalism. which is why he and Luther protested it.

MB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Gentlemen, some ignorance is not with the effort to refute.

 

[th1bill]

I'd be interested to know how, according to you, "Catholics invented Calvinism".

Hello Dr. Lamb. I have never been seated under you but do follow some of your teaching. Just so you know, I'm the Grumpy Old Mens Teacher at Silver Spring Baptist in Magnolia, TX. May God always bless your efforts in His name.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I don't have a UBS4 so I can't tell you if that says anything about it or not. If you have an NA-27 You can find the truth of this in it's introduction. The copy I have is in English and German. The united Bible society may not have the same introduction. In my copy the introduction also explains the Critical Apparatus used to translate it from mostly the Westscott and Hort's Greek New Testament. They also state that this text was invaluable in it's translation.
MB

That’s cool I don’t have the NA 27 (only the UBS4)—but your obviously interested in studying Greek & I’m always curious to see what other Greek students think about the accuracy of modern translations. Every other student of the language I’ve personally talked with either endorses the NASB or the ESV—but I’m always open to hear other ideas on this issue—I’m really more open to discussion about this issue then a lot of other biblically related topics (meaning I’m not going to call you names if we disagree-lol)—so is there a preferred modern version in your understanding?
PS—I’m not the biggest Westcott & Hort fan-so I understand having problems with them!

 

[MB]

That’s cool I don’t have the NA 27 (only the UBS4)—but your obviously interested in studying Greek & I’m always curious to see what other Greek students think about the accuracy of modern translations. Every other student of the language I’ve personally talked with either endorses the NASB or the ESV—but I’m always open to hear other ideas on this issue—I’m really more open to discussion about this issue then a lot of other biblically related topics (meaning I’m not going to call you names if we disagree-lol)—so is there a preferred modern version in your understanding?
PS—I’m not the biggest Westcott & Hort fan-so I understand having problems with them!

Predominately I use the KJV though that should not be understood that I'm in the camp of KJV onlies. I worship Christ not a Bible version. I dislike dynamic translations because they are in fact what a person thinks the manuscripts are saying and not necessiarily what the author intended but rather what the translater intended. The text they translated does not say the same thing as the original they translated it from or even in the same way.
MB

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Predominately I use the KJV though that should not be understood that I'm in the camp of KJV onlies. I worship Christ not a Bible version. I dislike dynamic translations because they are in fact what a person thinks the manuscripts are saying and not necessiarily what the author intended but rather what the translater intended. The text they translated does not say the same thing as the original they translated it from or even in the same way.
MB

The ESV is in the essentially literal catagory. It is way more literal than the NIV but not as clunky as the NASB.

 

[glfredrick]

Predominately I use the KJV though that should not be understood that I'm in the camp of KJV onlies. I worship Christ not a Bible version. I dislike dynamic translations because they are in fact what a person thinks the manuscripts are saying and not necessiarily what the author intended but rather what the translater intended. The text they translated does not say the same thing as the original they translated it from or even in the same way.
MB

Thanks... I asked above after your rather crude remarks about other translations. I figured as much.

I'm indeed wondering, however, how you can so readily support a version of the Bible given us by King James, who persecuted the early Baptists TO DEATH, and who wrote into rule of law in England and Scotland, the fact that all citizens had to be under his rule in the Church of England?

Seems that King James ACTUALLY did the evils so often ascribed to John Calvin (but that he never actually did).