-
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 Church’s most important Doctrine
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
Alive in Christ
New Member
I disagree with that.
I believe our most important doctrine is.....
Jesus saves & Jesus is Lord.
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello Alive in Christ
Once again, as much as I would love to agree with you, about the fact that “Jesus saves & Jesus is Lord”, being the most important Doctrine.
It is clear, that without the Doctrines of Inspiration & Preservation, the notion that Jesus saves & Jesus is Lord, would be nothing more than a fairytale.
Because without the Bible to document that Jesus saves and that Jesus is Lord, this would just be another “religious story”; Just like all the stories, that all the world’s other religions are offering to mankind.
-------------------------------------------
The Bible’s Inspiration & Preservation, is one of the things that sets Christianity apart from every other world religion!
Once again, as much as I would love to agree with you, about the fact that “Jesus saves & Jesus is Lord”, being the most important Doctrine.
It is clear, that without the Doctrines of Inspiration & Preservation, the notion that Jesus saves & Jesus is Lord, would be nothing more than a fairytale.
Because without the Bible to document that Jesus saves and that Jesus is Lord, this would just be another “religious story”; Just like all the stories, that all the world’s other religions are offering to mankind.
-------------------------------------------
The Bible’s Inspiration & Preservation, is one of the things that sets Christianity apart from every other world religion!
Well then one must wonder how the church ever got started? How did the church grow from the time of the Christ's ascension to the time the Bible was compiled?
Answer: Word-of-mouth by believers. God could have built His church without the written word had He chosen to do so.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Amen. I would also like to see such a list.
Do some live in a pretend world they've created filled with pseudo-persecution and martyrdom, and at the same time pretend to defend that which is not being attacked?
PAR'APHRASE, v.t. To explain, interpret or translate with latitude; to unfold the sense of an author with more clearness and particularity than it is expressed in his own words.
Newer versions are called dynamic or thought for thought which is why none of them say exactly what another says. Each has been explained by the translator instead of actually translating them
Being the thought for thought process means in effect it is explained by the so called translator which makes it a paraphrase. An explanation is not a true word for word translation. It has become a paraphrase
Not so. And it is wrong to make such a claim like that while it is unproveable. You cannot possibly know for sure yet you still make the claim based most likely on what a Bible salesman has told you. There are no originals manuscripts. We can only hope that any translation is accurate.
The KJB is more word for word than any other translation. Which makes it the most accurate.
Even the N/A 27 is taken from a discredited text which is the reason for the odd way it was put together. Mistakes and errors judged so by those who read only the N/A 27 and it's self has been over seen and approved by the Pope.
My proof the N/A 27 introduction
MB
Where you do see that the NASB or the ESV are "dynamic" translations??
[/quote]
Well, I'll go with the version that uses ALL of the manuscripts that God has used. I don't care who approves it other than God. I certainly wouldn't have wanted my daughter to be treated by the doctors who had missed the weeks on pancreases and spleens - I for sure wouldn't want to ignore all that God has given us of His Word. You DO realize that it's the KJV that all of the cults use, right? So do we disregard it because of that? No.
The NKJV is also word for word methodology translating from the majority text, plus it translates words more accurately into modern english than the KJV (i.e. precede instead of prevent; conduct instead of conversation; mature instead of perfect, etc.) therefore the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV.
Agree!
No, we don't agree that it is corrupted
Well, I wouldn't go that far. God has promised to preserve his Word and I believe him. You are right that on some variants, we are not sure 100% which one is right. Though we can say we know one of them is.
Because different people translate. People have different writing styles so when they translate, it will be different. Sometimes there are differences on the proper way to translate a particular passage. Obviously there are textual variants. And there is usually more than one way to translate something from one language to another without changing the meaning. We have synonyms. A translator can use any of those synonyms he chooses.
Well, that's simply and ignorant, untrue statement. (just to clarify, "ignorant" means unlearned in the specific area I referenced. There seems to be a few people that don't know what the term ignorant means.) While there are paraphrases out there(the message for example) not all are. The NASB is more literal than the KJV is. (yes, I know you would disagree over the source text, but that doesn't change the translating style.) The ESV, the NKJV(which uses the same source as the KJV) HCSB and even the NIV are not paraphrases. (The NIV is more in the middle of the scale).
And just to clarify, the KJV(and the NKJV) isn't translated from the Majority Text. There are quite a few differences between the MT and the TR. (Col 1:14 and I John 5:7 to name two main ones.)
Last edited by a moderator:
a printing error is not an error with God's messege. so those arent going to count. if we notice them, we should throw that bible out. (what the scribes did-to protect the quality of the work) I am not sure there are errors in the KJV, in fact I am guess I am one of those ignornant fundies that say there isn't errors and I can trust my bible, but that's just me. if God promises to preserve His Word how could he do it with errors? that's not preservation. oh and I think he actively does it today as with bibles, portions of scriptures being translated into new languages today.
Isn't the 1977 NASV of the Bible still considered being Most literal of all modern tranlations, to point of being "wooden?"
Also, if we say that different versions cannot translate different ways and be true to God...
Does that mean the prophets who described same events in fdifferent ways, as well as 4 Gospel writers, must be Inaccurate and wrong?
I believe the other versions contain the Word of God, but they are far from it. God is not the author of confusion, and the majority of christians believe that the KJV is the best version...EASILY! Else why would it last 400 years? what other one translation of any book can say that?
I think they absolutely do have errors in them. they cast doubt on the scriptures and those that read them are taking a man's word instead of accepting the bible as truth and letting God speak, when I study I use a plain cambridge bible with no notes whatsoever. So as to not accidently look over to what men have said about the bible. How about we let the bible speak to what the bible says. if there is a quote from scripture and I dont know it off hand then I will look it up in a commentary then go back to the source of that scripture and say "why is Paul quoting this passage?" I also have a Scofield and he is wrong and offbase so often and he himself cast doubt on the scripture in notes and intros.
What about the Bible versions before KJV though? is the Vulgate best one, as it predated KJV over 1000.00 years and some stauch RC use it to this very day!
What about those who never spoke English and had own language versions, some predated KJV too!
There are no originals manuscripts. We can only hope that any translation is accurate. (this was a quote, but I tried to only quote the portion I cared to respond to but somehow messed it up)
actually, We can trust God that he would preserve His Word as He has promised He would do.
actually, We can trust God that he would preserve His Word as He has promised He would do.
Big difference between versions of translations and study notes...
Should read ALL study notes as being from men, some are quite helpful, NONE are inspired by God!
And again, there are NO primary doctrines affected regardless if one uses KJV/NKJV/NASB/NIV etc!
stilllearning
Active Member
Amen to that!
it's not more accurate. it is just that maybe we educate people on what the words mean instead of just "oh, you guys are all so stupid you will never understand the classical definition of this word" We have dumbed down the english language so much we can no longer read anything written more than 25 years old. ask a teenager to read or understand his vocab words... they dont have a clue and that's the fault of parent and teachers. we should keep the classical meanings and educate! and if they dont understand GET A DICTIONARY!! one of the qualifications of a pastor is "apt to teach" like what is true confession? maybe we missed the boat on confession... how many people get up and just list off what they did and say that is confession? but the bible definition is "to say the same thing as"
How better off would our churches be if we had true confession on sunday mornings? imagine a church where people said "I hate my sin, I hate the world, I hate the devil!" and mean it by asking forgiveness, repenting "turning from the sin" and being holy "seperated" from sin and unto God. The way our churches do it today is preacher preaches, if someone goes forward it's "God, I was bad this week, I did this and this and this, forgive me" (then the next week it is the same thing.) we never have a change of direction or heart.