The accuracy of the bible

[DHK]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Hi DHK!

I was just trying to find some answers.

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume19/TM019199.htm

How shall I deal with this? Shall I block it out? Shall I read it but not take it seriously?
This doesn't work. If you start questioning only 1 verse then it doesn't take long and you question the whole bible. This is a huge problem.
Then you can question every single verse which you don't like. I cannot believe that God wants this, I wish God would simply tell me who's right and then the whole problem would be solved.

First avoid sites that go to extremes. For example the URL above is from the COC, a cult, and is simply defending that passage of Scripture because it needs Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

to defend its heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Second, avoid the radical KJVO sites. Any site that claims the KJV is inspired and infallible ought to be avoided. As John said it amounts to a cult. The position cannot be defended. Some go as far as to say that the KJV corrects the Hebrew and the Greek. Others would say that a missionary such as I, would have to teach people in foreign nations Shakesperean English first (so that they can understand the KJV Bible) before they can be saved. Still others would deny me of my salvation because the person that led me to the Lord used Good News for Modern Man!!
Their postions vary, and can be very radical.
No translation is inspired. Only the originals are inspired and we don't have them anymore. But God promised to preserve His Word. He did so in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. As I said before, my personal belief is that they are preserved in textus receptus. Others believe differently.

On the end of the spectrum avoid those sites which deliberately say that we don't have the Word of God. The Bible is like any other book. In other words, those sites which are modernistic and deny the inspiration of the Bible completely.
Between the above position and the KJVO position you will find the truth. In the final analysis it is up to you to "study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
DHK

 

[xdisciplex]

Um, and how do I do this?

 

[rbell]

Disciple,

DHK speaks wisely.
Practical example: We had a "D'now Weekend" at our church this weekend (a student event/retreat). For the passage and theme we used, I was unable to find the curriculum that would fit. So, I wrote it. I looked at 7-8 different translations (as well as the Greek New Testament), commentaries, and tons of prayer (and coffee!).

I found a few places where the word was nuanced a bit differently. I compared the texts, and looked at the context...

One passage, I thought the KJV summed it up the best. The others weren't wrong, but the KJV hit the nail on the head.

The other passage...I thought the NIV and NASB summed the thought up the best. Same idea as above, but a different translation seemed to be more precise.

In summary, "how you do this" is through hard work studying the scriptures, seeking wise counsel, and tons of prayer.

It's been nice watching this thread take a turn more toward dialogue. God's best to you...

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Um, and how do I do this?

How do you do what? You find out what a website is about be reading what is in it.
I took your URL, deleted everything after .com which then took me to the home page. I clicked on "churches." A map of the USA came up. I clicked on a State. Up popped a list of COC churches. The website is sponsored by the COC.

Most other sites you simply have to read the statement of faith. It is not that difficult.

As to your own study, learn to study the Bible in a systematic way.
DHK

 

[rbell]

CUT...multiple post. Mods, you can get the other duplicate if you'd like. Sorry.

 

[Ed Edwards]

xdisciplex: //Or what about hell,grave and sheol?

//Imagine you want to warn somebody and tell him:

//Either you repent or you go to the grave!

//Do you think this will impress this person at all? Of course not.//

'Hell' is one of the top dozen 4-letter curse words
in 21st Century English. Why would you cuss somebody and
hope to win them to the Lord?

"Hell' comes from Middle English, Old English, Old High German,
and Islandic. It probably refers to the interior of a volcano.'
"Hell' means the Greek idea of the punishment of the damned.

By contrast 'Sheol' comes from the Hebrew and means the Jewish
idea of the abode of the dead.

I prefer the reading 'Sheol' in the Old Testament instead of the
Islandic 'hell'. BTW, there is a difference in the New Testament
between the grave - the abode of the dead, and 'the eternal lake of fire'
which is like 'hell'.


Tee hee & BTW, IT would behove one to read before attacking people in
this Forum. A person attacked the wimpist debater of all, Brother JohnV
and got wupped by him

tee hee

Also, five or six of us have files debuking whatever strange idea
one has about Lucifer and Isaiah 14:12. See, we read THE REAL KJV,
the KJV1611 Edition footnote for Isaiah 14:12. One aught to read
that translator footone before sparing the "Day Starre" subject here.

Tee hee, Brother JohnV has cut more slack for other folks here than all
the rest of us put together

tee hee

 

[Ed Edwards]

Diggin in da Word (posted in a now dead topic):
//NASB has made over 8000 changes in 1995 from it's 1977 edition.
None of them spelling or printing. //

Such statements have no meaning in debates unless one of the
two following conditions are also present:

1. A reference to the data and who developed it
and how the developed it.

2. You personally did the study and found the results.

What is totally missing is things like:

What was the criteria for a change?
For example, From the KJV1611 to the KJV1769 the word 'sonne' was
changed to 'son'. Is this counted as a spelling change, a printing
correction, a word change, or a meaning change? If this change
was made more than once in the Bible, was it counted:
A. once per Bible
B. once per Testament
C. once per book
D. on each occurance?

Data* is meaningless unless it is related what that data means.
Your 'over 8000 changes in the NASB' is a meaningless point of
data that proves nothing and helps nobody, I.E. (in otherwords)
fits the scriptrual definition of GOSSIP.

* note: I've made over $1,000,000 (one Million Dolla's) as a
professional data collection/handling automater - I no my data.

Diggin in da Word: //NASB has made over 8000 changes in 1995 from it's 1977 edition.
None of them spelling or printing. //

Robycop3: //Howdya know those changes are wrong? Or, is it just a guess? //

Better yet: How do you know those changes exist and what they mean?

JOhnV: //KJVOists believe
that the KJV and the KJV alone is the sole authoritative, inspired
perfectly preserved, and infallible Word of God for all Christians
everywhere. This is a completely false doctrine (since it is not
found in scripture, and all who love the KJV must take a stand
against such doctrinal error. //

Amen, Brother JohnV -- Preach it!
I love the KJV so much I have three different paper KJVs
and two different electronic (E-sword) KJVs.
The three different versions are:

A. KJV1611 Edition
B. KJV1769 Edition
C. KJV1873 Edition

(Arithemetic note: 3+2=5 ONLY when the '3', the '2' and the '5'
are measured in the same units. Here I have a case where the units show
that 3+2=3 with no Arithemetic problems.

 

[OldRegular]

I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible in its original manuscripts.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here is section I of the Baptist Faith & Message
of 2000 concerning the Bible:

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

 

[Eliyahu]

JohnV:

You posted the following at the other thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2666.html

JohnV said:
I absolutely love the KJV (the 1769 edition). It's one of the first bibles I ever studied in depth. My love for the KJV is why I defend it so staunchly from the single-translation-onlyists who besmudge it by making it the center of their manmade doctrine .


Now you say this:

If it is your belief that any "additions" must be avoided, then you must stay awy from the KJV. Why? Because the source texts of the KJV are more recent than the source texts of man of the so-called "modern versions". Therefore, following your logic, the KJV source texts added the verses in question .
It is inconsistent logic to stick to the KJV out of concern for "additions

How come you have two mouths !

Your own post betrays you !

[ March 01, 2006, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Johnv:
I never said he was a liar because he is hated. He is a liar because he lies.
[/QB]

The same may apply to you, JohnV.

Everyone will recognize it if you post all the articles which you posted on this thread to the thread : I love KJV Bible where you mentioned " I absolutely love KJV.

Liars say lies with some reservation though, like saying I hate Only-ism, then calling KJV as addition to the Bible.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
The same may apply to you, JohnV.

Then you agree that Jack Chick is a liar.

Liars say lies with some reservation though, like saying I hate Only-ism, then calling KJV as addition to the Bible.

Now it is YOU who lie, because I never said that. Even if I did (which I didn't), it would be hypocritical of you to hold Jack Chick to a different standard than me. So if you're calling me a liar, then you have no choice but to acknowlege that Jack Chick is a liar.

 

[Tazman]

DHK,

This is an insert from the "Truthmagazine" link posted earlier by Disciple.

In regard to the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20, it needs to be be first pointed out that the authenticity of this passage (i.e. the historical accuracy and correctness of its teaching) has never been questioned by scholars. The only question that has been raised as to its genuineness pertains to whether or not it was written by Mark and whether it should be considered a part of Mark's original manuscript. Since the accuracy and correctness of the teaching cannot be successfully denied, for the passage to be attached to the close of Mark's Gospel does not render it any less valuable even though some other Apostle or inspired writer should have been its author.

You called it a cult for whatever reason, but why?
Is it because it does not agree with your understanding or the bible?

 

[xdisciplex]

Originally posted by DHK:
For example the URL above is from the COC, a cult, and is simply defending that passage of Scripture because it needs Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

to defend its heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Are you saying Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine?

This would mean that God was not able to protect his word for us christians. I mean how am I as a non-scholar supposed to know what's real and what not? I can only trust God that he protects his word. It would make me pretty angry if I found out that all the time I have been reading bible verses which never belonged there.
This makes no sense. God who is allmighty sits up there and watches how his word gets corrupted but yet he's not able to step in. Come on. If God cannot preserve his word then we have nothing to stand on. Or do we want to start questioning every verse wether it might be real or not?

 

[xdisciplex]

Check this out, written by a baptist brother.

http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliologia-Traducoes/OnlyTwoBibles-Ellis.htm

ONLY TWO BIBLES
(FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES)


By Dr. Jim Ellis, Pastor
New Testament Baptist Church
Cape Coral, Fl.

 

[Johnv]

Looks like more KJVOist nonsense. Why do you pay attention to such nonsense?

 

[xdisciplex]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Looks like more KJVOist nonsense. Why do you pay attention to such nonsense?

Why is this nonsense? Somebody else might call your stuff nonsense. Simply calling something nonsense isn't very convincing.

 

[Tazman]

Or do we want to start questioning every verse wether it might be real or not?

Only when It threatens their doctrine.

Other than that, it all good.

Bye the way I love my NIV and my NASB and my Amplified and my KJV and other version I have. My fave is NIV.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Why is this nonsense?

KJVOism is false doctrine. Case closed. It's not a matter of debate. If you've learned nothing else on this board, you should at least have learned that much by now.

 

[xdisciplex]

You mean baptists like questioning the bible?