-
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!
The accuracy of the bible
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
xdisciplex
New Member
Oh pleeeeeeze! Give me a break!
I cannot believe this. So you think that only because your German relatives do not know Jack Chick I, as a German, also can impossibly know him? If you really believe this then I really have to doubt your intellect, my friend.
What? This is not German. If you want to communicate with me in German then please speak German. I don't know which kind of translator you are using but it's a very bad one.
So it's okay to make changes to scripture so long as it gives more glory to Jesus? Your reasonig appears to be flawed and subjective.
How can the NIV have "removed" text, when the NIV source texts predate the KJV source texts by hundreds of years? By your logic, it is the KJV that removed the text you point to.
What's dumb is your flawed and inconsistent reasoning.Let's say the KJV has been added to then Satan was pretty dumb cause he did a pretty counterproductive thing since these additions are not negative.
Do you not see how ignorant of scripture this statement makes you look? Hell discussed in the NT at length, and accurately. Hades/Sheol are likewise discussed, but mostly in the OT. If you had basic scriptural knowlege in English, you'd know that.
xdisciplex
New Member
No.
If the older versions had contained grave then I would have been okay with it. I just don't like that suddenly everything is watered down and disarmed.
xdisciplex:
Many of your questions would be answered if you had some understanding of the Greek language, the language which the New Testament was written in, or Hebrew for the Old Testament. Much of the time there is enough resource material available to us that we don't have to be scholars to find out the information that we need to know. We simply need to be patient students of the Word of God.
If the words Hell and grave in the Old Testament trouble you then take the time to look up what the Hebrew word "Sheol" actually means. You will find that it means "place of the departed dead." It may have a secondary meaning of grave, but if it does it would rarely be used if ever. There is another word for grave used in the Hebrew, "keber." A picture of Sheol is given by Jesus in Luke 16 where paradise is on one side of a chasm and "Hell" is on the other, and no man can cross from one to the other. Sheol is simply "the place of the departed dead." I had one year of Hebrew, but that was long ago. I don't really remember much of the Hebrew I studied and so I rely on the knowledge of others. I study. The Bible commands us to study. We can find these things out for ourselves.
When you come across the word "Hell" see what the word in the Greek (in the New Testament) is being used, then go to a lexicon and find out what that word actually means. Use Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, and commentaries. Study. In the Old Testament there is very little difference in the Hebrew texts that were used in translations. Perhaps there is more difference in the way that it is translated than in the actual Hebrew. So find out the word and look it up and find out what it means.
In the New Testament there is a much greater difference. There are basically two Bibles. One translated from the critical text, and one from the TR. Almost all of the modern versions come from the critical text, and the KJV comes from the TR, along with the NKJV. The dispute arises which text is closer to the originals. I personally believe that God's Word has been preserved in the TR. But that is not a cause for division. I came to that conclusion through my own personal study. I suggest you do the same. Why would the TR preserve more accurately the manuscripts than the critical text. This is textual criticism. You will find many of your answers by reading some of the threads in the Versions forum--both pro and con. First study. And then make up your mind.
DHK
Many of your questions would be answered if you had some understanding of the Greek language, the language which the New Testament was written in, or Hebrew for the Old Testament. Much of the time there is enough resource material available to us that we don't have to be scholars to find out the information that we need to know. We simply need to be patient students of the Word of God.
If the words Hell and grave in the Old Testament trouble you then take the time to look up what the Hebrew word "Sheol" actually means. You will find that it means "place of the departed dead." It may have a secondary meaning of grave, but if it does it would rarely be used if ever. There is another word for grave used in the Hebrew, "keber." A picture of Sheol is given by Jesus in Luke 16 where paradise is on one side of a chasm and "Hell" is on the other, and no man can cross from one to the other. Sheol is simply "the place of the departed dead." I had one year of Hebrew, but that was long ago. I don't really remember much of the Hebrew I studied and so I rely on the knowledge of others. I study. The Bible commands us to study. We can find these things out for ourselves.
When you come across the word "Hell" see what the word in the Greek (in the New Testament) is being used, then go to a lexicon and find out what that word actually means. Use Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, and commentaries. Study. In the Old Testament there is very little difference in the Hebrew texts that were used in translations. Perhaps there is more difference in the way that it is translated than in the actual Hebrew. So find out the word and look it up and find out what it means.
In the New Testament there is a much greater difference. There are basically two Bibles. One translated from the critical text, and one from the TR. Almost all of the modern versions come from the critical text, and the KJV comes from the TR, along with the NKJV. The dispute arises which text is closer to the originals. I personally believe that God's Word has been preserved in the TR. But that is not a cause for division. I came to that conclusion through my own personal study. I suggest you do the same. Why would the TR preserve more accurately the manuscripts than the critical text. This is textual criticism. You will find many of your answers by reading some of the threads in the Versions forum--both pro and con. First study. And then make up your mind.
DHK
xdisciplex
New Member
Hi DHK!
I was just trying to find some answers. But I guess it also depends on where you ask. If I ask at a KJV only forum then I get different answers compared to asking at such a forum where most of the people do not seem to be KJV-Onlyists.
I do not think that this is something where you simply research enough and then everything is totally clear. I think if you have a KJVist and an NIVist debate with each other they would never agree with each other. They would argue forever and not come to the same opinion. And then once again there is also the problem which sources are reliable? Why should those which say that the NIV is based on the older, better texts be telling the truth? The KJVists say that these older texts are not better and that they are also not even the majority. So in the end it depends on who you believe. But it doesn't really strengthen my trust in the bible when there are dozens of different bible versions with missing verses etc.
In order to totally rely on the bible I have to settle this issue. And somehow I also cannot imagine that God likes all this confusion and that God likes it when we have so many different bible versions.
Recently somebody told me that he thinks Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine. I did not even know what he meant until I searched for it on the net. And there are many sites about it and this is not the only passage which people argue about wether it's real or not.
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.
I was just trying to find some answers. But I guess it also depends on where you ask. If I ask at a KJV only forum then I get different answers compared to asking at such a forum where most of the people do not seem to be KJV-Onlyists.
I do not think that this is something where you simply research enough and then everything is totally clear. I think if you have a KJVist and an NIVist debate with each other they would never agree with each other. They would argue forever and not come to the same opinion. And then once again there is also the problem which sources are reliable? Why should those which say that the NIV is based on the older, better texts be telling the truth? The KJVists say that these older texts are not better and that they are also not even the majority. So in the end it depends on who you believe. But it doesn't really strengthen my trust in the bible when there are dozens of different bible versions with missing verses etc.
In order to totally rely on the bible I have to settle this issue. And somehow I also cannot imagine that God likes all this confusion and that God likes it when we have so many different bible versions.
Recently somebody told me that he thinks Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine. I did not even know what he meant until I searched for it on the net. And there are many sites about it and this is not the only passage which people argue about wether it's real or not.
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.
The language is irrelevant. Jack Chick is a liar and a false teacher, regardless of the language. KJVOism, and any type of single-translation-onlyism, are false doctrine, regardless of language.
Very good. That was Dutch. Aber Sie haben meine vorherige Worte noch nicht beantworten.
xdisciplex
New Member
How can you say that? Chick is very hated, but this doesn't mean he's a liar.
In Germany there is this phrase which goes like:
Viel Feind, viel Ehr'. > Many enemies, much honor.
So having many enemies could also be a sign that you're doing something right.
When you're a christian and the world loves you then this is much more concerning.
Haha, you rogue.
Wanted to test me.
I don't know much about the Gutenberg bible so I can't say anything about it.
There's no such thing as a "NIV-ist". There's only single-translation-onlyists (most often, KJVOists) and people who are not single-translation-onlyists. Since single-translation-onlyism is not a scripturally evident doctrine, it must not be subscribed to by Christians.
...it doesn't really strengthen my trust in the bible when there are dozens of different bible versions with missing verses etc.
That isn't an issue of translations. It's an issue of your personal weakness in matters of faith.
The only people who claim that there is any confusion are those who adhere to the false doctrine of KJVOism. People who don't subscribe to false doctrines don't have any such issue.
xdisciplex
New Member
lol, this is a problem of bible versions, too.
Or do you want to tell me that it doesn't affect you at all wether whole passages are being questioned? I think you don't realized the size of the problem.
I never said he was a liar because he is hated. He is a liar because he lies.
Haha, you rogue.
Wanted to test me.
And you pass
I have one, or, should I say, a reprint of one. I used it for study when I learned how to speak German. I have relatives in Germany, the Netherlands (hence the Dutch) and a few other non-English speaking places, like Texas.
No it doesn't. Not in the least. There will always be translational issues when translating from one language to another. Thay are unavoidable There is no such thing as a perfect translation.
Having studied the topic in not one, but two bible colleges, I can tell you with assuredness that I am aware of the topic.I think you don't realized the size of the problem.
xdisciplex
New Member
And what's so special about the Gutenberg bible?
xdisciplex
New Member
Excuse me, but we are not talking about a different translation we are talking about whole passages!
What do you do when somebody comes along and says John chapter 5 is not genuine for example? Do you say "Okay, this doesn't even matter. The meaning of the bible isn't affected by this."
Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Excuse me, but we are not talking about a different translation we are talking about whole passages!
You originally brought up the issue of KJVOism, and have intermixed that issue with the appearance and disappearance of passages.
Warum antworten Sie nicht die Fragen wie ich auf Ihre Sprache aufgegeben hat? Ich glaube das Sie verstehen mich vielleicht nicht.
Is it in the TR and related source texts? Yes. Is it in the LXX and related source texts? Yes. Case closed. No reason to question its authenticity. You have demonstrated on several posts that you have an ear for rumor and gossip. That is a spiritual issue that you need to deal with. It is, in the very least, a major contributor to your confusion. If you deal with it, then you won't be turning your ear to every opinion you hear as though it were gospel.
If I was approached by someone saying, "John 5 is not in the Bible," I would respond in one of several ways:
-For all who would say this: I would ask what they meant by that...for one, because we have no textual evidence that even suggests John 5 shouldn't be in there. Also, I would want to know more about them so I could respond accordingly...
-Lost person: I would dialogue with them about how much we know about scriptures (the number of texts we have vs. other documents of that era, as well as share how God has changed me through His word...an APOLOGETIC aproach.
-Troublemaking Christian: I'd probably say, "Well, actually, the early scriptures were not divided chapter and verse." This would confuse them and shut them up...a FUNNY approach.
-A confused Christian: I'd take them through (in an abbreviated way) exactly why we have these different translations--the different source texts, and how/why they chose to translate as they did...an ENLIGHTENING approach.
Jack Chick (whom you've quoted) uses an "atomic" approach. I don't believe much of what he says...but even if I did, he is so abrasive in his tone & manner, that I don't find it helpful in dealing with non-Christians. But hey, your mileage may vary.
I can't say this enough...I love the KJV. I use it in my study a good bit, and on some occasions with my students (though not as often as I would have twenty years ago). I'm not here to belittle the translation. But I don't want to see other good translations be thrown out.
God Bless.
-For all who would say this: I would ask what they meant by that...for one, because we have no textual evidence that even suggests John 5 shouldn't be in there. Also, I would want to know more about them so I could respond accordingly...
-Lost person: I would dialogue with them about how much we know about scriptures (the number of texts we have vs. other documents of that era, as well as share how God has changed me through His word...an APOLOGETIC aproach.
-Troublemaking Christian: I'd probably say, "Well, actually, the early scriptures were not divided chapter and verse." This would confuse them and shut them up...a FUNNY approach.
-A confused Christian: I'd take them through (in an abbreviated way) exactly why we have these different translations--the different source texts, and how/why they chose to translate as they did...an ENLIGHTENING approach.
Jack Chick (whom you've quoted) uses an "atomic" approach. I don't believe much of what he says...but even if I did, he is so abrasive in his tone & manner, that I don't find it helpful in dealing with non-Christians. But hey, your mileage may vary.
I can't say this enough...I love the KJV. I use it in my study a good bit, and on some occasions with my students (though not as often as I would have twenty years ago). I'm not here to belittle the translation. But I don't want to see other good translations be thrown out.
God Bless.
xdisciplex
New Member
How am I supposed to know wether a passage is in the TR and the LXX?
Study scripture, scriptural history, and scriptural source texts. Scripture itself even says "study to show yourself approved". It's what I've been saying all along.
Additionally, most bibles will tell you what their primary source texts are, and what their secondary texts are. They will often go to the additional trouble of noting any textual variations in footnotes.
Additionally, most bibles will tell you what their primary source texts are, and what their secondary texts are. They will often go to the additional trouble of noting any textual variations in footnotes.