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!
To there is also now the Family 35 Greek text. Which was developed to be the identity of the original Greek text.The main problem that I have is determining which Greek New Testament is the Word of God. Is it the Received Text or the Majority Text? I know it can't be the Critical Text.
I have found that you change KJV onlyists by being subtle. I know a KJV only preacher, who is too stubborn to ever admit he is wrong in the pulpit, but he has for practical purposes seen the light.The King James Onlyism's mistake is defending the KJV for KJV rather than defending the true word of God which is the real issue.
It seems to me to be a matter of accuracy.The main problem that I have is determining which Greek New Testament is the Word of God. Is it the Received Text or the Majority Text? I know it can't be the Critical Text.
The King James Onlyism's mistake is defending the KJV for KJV rather than defending the true word of God which is the real issue.
I have found that you change KJV onlyists by being subtle. I know a KJV only preacher, who is too stubborn to ever admit he is wrong in the pulpit, but he has for practical purposes seen the light.
It happened through subtly showing him how he misinterpreted verses or needlessly stumbled through hard passages. It started a long time ago in Sunday School. He was not teaching, but we were both in the class. He commented on some passage about it's real meaning and he had studied it in dictionary. He basically explained it word for word ESV. I asked him later if he got it from ESV. He spotted and sputtered a bit. Next time ai saw him, he said " That ESV did have that one right.". Over time I have no doubt whatsoever that his sermon prep is now done from ESV.
It seems to me to be a matter of accuracy.
The Majority Text, Byzantine Text, Family 35 I believe to be the most accurate.
Next the Textus Receptus traditions.
Then the Critical Texts.
They are all copied from the Original Greek Text. But over time errors made there way in hand written copies. CriticalTexts have the most errors. The Textus Receptus traditions have only a few of the Critical Text errors and the Majority/Byzantine Text seems to have the least.
Are you really ignorant of the handed down manuscripts and known variant readings? And their evidence?Where is it? I would like a shot at defending it.
Are you really ignorant of the handed down manuscripts and known variant readings? And their evidence?
So what was the true Word of God before 1600?
First, I was answering post number 3#, not number 1#.Time out! You obviously missed what the op said. He said, "The King James Onlyism's mistake is defending the KJV for KJV rather than defending the true word of God which is the real issue."
He needs to read what you are saying about there being no true word of God. You are just saying what all other scholars are saying. He doesn't know what he is talking about in the op when he says one must defend the true word of God. He doesn't have a clue where it is.
Since he knows this,it is a dumb op.
What's wrong with it? ESV has it rightDo you believe the death of Jesus Christ on the cross ended the ages like the ESV claims? Here:
26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
You are not buying that are you?
Are you in full agreement with the authors of the ESV?
That is a question, not an answer.
Yes. Which has an answer which you either believe or do not believe. The word of God did not begin with the 1611 translation.That is a question, not an answer.
What's wrong with it? ESV has it right
The translation is correct. Don't understand your hang up. The Cross is the culmination or end of the ages. It is not referencing a minute in time, but an act of completeness....wellll, okay. thanks. I doubt that I will take anything you say seriously from this point on.
I would like to demonstrate how out of touch with the language you and your ESV really are.
Here is what your ESV and you say in Heb 9:26.
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Here is what your ESV says before verse 26;
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
On the one hand in verses 16-17 and context, we are told something new is beginning while in v 26 you say it is the end. If you would have said his death was the end of the age, instead of ages, then there would have been room for a new age where the New Testament in Christ's blood was the realization of what the Old Testament looked forward to in the person of Jesus Christ.
Since Jesus Christ made the ages, he has the right to determine the end and the beginning and it behooves us to believe it and not tolerating some changing his words by adding an "S' to them.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (AIONS = ages)
The last days of a single age, the age under which the Law of Moses was the divine principle of God's dealing with the Hebrews to bring them to Christ, and as Ga 3 says, that faith might come in as the saving principle.
Here is the age that was ended in plain English;
Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(the promise is the Spirit)
Now look at this verse in relation to the others;
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
The "we" are still the Hebrews.
Why do you think God had his apostle to write a whole letter to the Hebrews, who were actually exercised by this OT law for the previous 1500 years, to explain how those ordinances they were given to keep should have instructed them concerning Jesus Christ and their redemption in him?
Post death on the cross was a new age with different principles of divine dealing. To say all ages were ended by Christ's death is just wrong and is offensive. This letter was written in the mid 60's of the first century. When Paul wrote Romans in 58 AD, he said this after having observed the Jews reaction to Jesus Christ for 28 years.
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
You need to think of Israel's promises in the Old Testament as being put in force with the death of Christ and as ready to be claimed by those who are the heirs in his New Testament. There will be no more death of the testator after he was raised from the dead.
The translation is correct. Don't understand your hang up. The Cross is the culmination or end of the ages. It is not referencing a minute in time, but an act of completeness.