-
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 "original" Autographs
- Thread starter Pure Words
- Start date
Harvest, The same arguments could and possibly even should be used against you concerning your criticism of the NASB. Its translators were experts in the biblical languages with the benefit of 400 additional years of research plus modern discoveries and technology. Besides that, the NASB translators signed a doctrinal statement affirming salvation by grace alone and the inerrancy of scripture. It is unlikely that any of the KJV translators would have signed a statement containing the first statement.
What makes you qualified to correct the NASB? What qualifies you to determine which one is correct when the wording is different? What are your credentials?
Why do you waste your time trying to correct the 62 outstanding textual experts involved in the NASB translation and revision? http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbtrans.php
Most importantly, why are you avoiding problems with the KJV when you throw out the same kinds of criticisms against MV's and expect them to be taken as serious proof?
The Harvest
New Member
is your name actually Larry or is it Lawrence? what about PastorBob. is his name Bob or Robert? your argument is a waste of time.
The Harvest
New Member
i'm not really trying to correct the NASB. especially not in the way that johnv was trying to correct the AV, because i'm not a greek/hebrew scholar (just like 99% of the English-speaking Christians) and never have claimed to be. i was pointing out blatant lies. if two scriptures don't agree then they are errors. and there are errors in the NASB. my credentials for realizing this is that i can read.
Huh? If the reason you stated above was the truthful reason for why you didn't respond then how do you presumet to know "the way" Johnv was trying to correct it?
OK. Then deal with just one of John's objections. Is money "the root of all evil?" I Tim 6:10. If not, then by your rule the KJV contains a lie. And please don't try to explain it away to be some kind of figurative reference to lust. That isn't letting "God be true but every man a liar".
So when taken at face value, Luke 4:17-19 (KJV) does not match the text of Isaiah (KJV) then we have discovered an error, right?
None that don't have explainations every bit as credible as those given by KJVO's to explain away problems with the KJV.
Yet you suddenly lose that ability when a problem is pointed out in the KJV?
i decided that since i like to "let God be true, but every man a liar"
Me too. That's why I took the time to look at God's word, not a translation of God's word. God is true. Unfortunately, there are places where the KJV translators were not.
that i would ignore your boring rantings about how you are such a learned greek and hebrew scholar.
Thanks for the compliment, but anyone with a greek/hebrew concordance in their KJV can do the same. You're welcome to do the same. You may just learn something. And heck, you might even find some places where I'm wrong.
none of the "errors" you posted are worth the time you took to type them all out.
Yet they are errors nonetheless, and they refute your claim that the KJV is without error.
do you enjoy wasting time correcting God and correcting the 60 some men who were greek and hebrew EXPERTS that translated the 1611?
I do not pretend to correct God. On the contrary. As a Christian, I'm commanded to study the Word. As a result of my study I get satisfation knowing what God said, as opposed to what 60 men 400 years ago say God said. Are you saying that those 60 men had a right to change the Bible? If so, why is that not heresy?
what makes you so qualified to correct the King James translators? what are your credentials?
Two years of biblical and archeological studies at a baptist bible college, followed by one year of biblical cultural history at a Calvinist college. But none of those were required for looking into the KJV. All one needs to do is grab a copy of a KJ Bible with a greek and Hebrew concordance, and do the study for oneself.
You're welcome to look up my references and prove me wrong. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to let me know where I'm wrong.
Me too. That's why I took the time to look at God's word, not a translation of God's word. God is true. Unfortunately, there are places where the KJV translators were not.
that i would ignore your boring rantings about how you are such a learned greek and hebrew scholar.
Thanks for the compliment, but anyone with a greek/hebrew concordance in their KJV can do the same. You're welcome to do the same. You may just learn something. And heck, you might even find some places where I'm wrong.
none of the "errors" you posted are worth the time you took to type them all out.
Yet they are errors nonetheless, and they refute your claim that the KJV is without error.
do you enjoy wasting time correcting God and correcting the 60 some men who were greek and hebrew EXPERTS that translated the 1611?
I do not pretend to correct God. On the contrary. As a Christian, I'm commanded to study the Word. As a result of my study I get satisfation knowing what God said, as opposed to what 60 men 400 years ago say God said. Are you saying that those 60 men had a right to change the Bible? If so, why is that not heresy?
what makes you so qualified to correct the King James translators? what are your credentials?
Two years of biblical and archeological studies at a baptist bible college, followed by one year of biblical cultural history at a Calvinist college. But none of those were required for looking into the KJV. All one needs to do is grab a copy of a KJ Bible with a greek and Hebrew concordance, and do the study for oneself.
You're welcome to look up my references and prove me wrong. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to let me know where I'm wrong.
Larry
I have no idea. I assume Robert. I have never known a "Bob" who wasn't named "Robert."
Does this mean you can't tell me who this man is?
Bartholomew
New Member
Does this mean you can't tell me who this man is? </font>[/QUOTE]No, Larry, it means your argument is a waste of time. Who died on that cross for you? Was it Joshua? Or Yeshua? Oh, but PLEASE don't tell me it was "Jesus"! There was nodody around with that name! Fancy, the NIV, RV, RSV, NRSV and even the beloved NASB all don't even know who the Son of God was! And I suspect that you even get his name wrong in your preaching!
Bartholomew
New Member
No, it was revealed by God: the same God who both inspired and preserved his word. Why do you dismiss the power of God so flippently?Originally posted by Ransom:
The Harvest said:
how did they know exactly what Jesus prayed unless they were sitting right there where they could hear him?
So it wasn't in Scripture, but it was a tradition passed down to the Apostles and regarded as authoritative.
I've heard that somewhere before, but I Really Can't remember where.
AV Defender
New Member
Look @ "Jeremiah" for more details.What about Noah(from Hebrew)Or Noe(from Greek)Or Korah(Heb) or Core(Grk)? Got straw?
Bartholomew said:
No, it was revealed by God: the same God who both inspired and preserved his word. Why do you dismiss the power of God so flippently?
I am dismissing your claim that this conflated quote from Jeremiah and Zechariah is really an oral tradition, given verbally by Jeremiah alone, and passed down until Matthew heard it and wrote it up in his gospel.
Until you or some other KJV-onlyist comes up with some evidence other than Matthew 2:17 that this spoken prophecy existed, Ockham's Razor applies. In other words, until a credible alternative is presented, "spoken by Jeremy" means "written in Jeremiah and Zechariah and credited to Jeremiah."
And whenever I spy a KJV-onlyist attempting to subvert the authority of Scripture with a re-worked Roman Catholic argument, I will continue to point it out.
Why do you dismiss the power of God so flippently?
O, the humility!
No, it was revealed by God: the same God who both inspired and preserved his word. Why do you dismiss the power of God so flippently?
I am dismissing your claim that this conflated quote from Jeremiah and Zechariah is really an oral tradition, given verbally by Jeremiah alone, and passed down until Matthew heard it and wrote it up in his gospel.
Until you or some other KJV-onlyist comes up with some evidence other than Matthew 2:17 that this spoken prophecy existed, Ockham's Razor applies. In other words, until a credible alternative is presented, "spoken by Jeremy" means "written in Jeremiah and Zechariah and credited to Jeremiah."
And whenever I spy a KJV-onlyist attempting to subvert the authority of Scripture with a re-worked Roman Catholic argument, I will continue to point it out.
Why do you dismiss the power of God so flippently?
O, the humility!
Bartholomew
New Member
Neither I nor Harvest claimed this. The claim is that Jeremiah spoke those words. This claim is biblical, but further specualtion is just specualtion.
I'm glad you consider your interpretation of your version of Ockham's razor to be inspired, and to over-rule what scripture says.
Bartholomew said:
The claim is that Jeremiah spoke those words.
Now you're being disingenuous. You earlier said:
I'm glad you consider your interpretation of your version of Ockham's razor to be inspired, and to over-rule what scripture says.
First you claim that dismissing you is the same as dismissing the power of God. Now you are saying that what your interpretation of Scripture is equivalent to what Scripture itself says.
Who else makes that kind of arrogant boast?
I say that this "written/spoken" hairsplitting is another KJV-only ploy to prop up their rickety pseudo-theology.
The claim is that Jeremiah spoke those words.
Now you're being disingenuous. You earlier said:
Stop pussyfooting around and tell us what Matthew's source was for these words if it was not the written Scriptures.
I'm glad you consider your interpretation of your version of Ockham's razor to be inspired, and to over-rule what scripture says.
First you claim that dismissing you is the same as dismissing the power of God. Now you are saying that what your interpretation of Scripture is equivalent to what Scripture itself says.
Who else makes that kind of arrogant boast?
I say that this "written/spoken" hairsplitting is another KJV-only ploy to prop up their rickety pseudo-theology.
You guys are funny. You argue that "jeremy" really means Jeremiah all the while arguing that things that are different are not the same. It is simply inconsistent. The translation should read Jeremiah, since that is his name. It is a but a simple matter for a "perfect version" to get the name right. The NASB did ... Man, even the dreaded NIV did. Why didn't the KJV in all its perfection manage to get a simple name right??
For anyone who's looking for a fight, here's some real Bible deniers:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/2.html
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/2.html
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah...
The prophets apparently passed around sermons,
(Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon).
So, the Holy Spirit knows who's who among the prophets of Israel/Judah.
Maybe Zecharaiah received the same message as Jeremiah from the Spirit of God.
So maybe its not recorded in those books he wrote.
"It is better to give than to receive". We know Jesus said this but its nowhere in the Gospels.
HankD
The prophets apparently passed around sermons,
(Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon).
So, the Holy Spirit knows who's who among the prophets of Israel/Judah.
Maybe Zecharaiah received the same message as Jeremiah from the Spirit of God.
So maybe its not recorded in those books he wrote.
"It is better to give than to receive". We know Jesus said this but its nowhere in the Gospels.
HankD
Bartholomew
New Member
</font>[/QUOTE]Look, Ransom, if you're going to accuse me of lying, at least check your facts first. I did not say (or even write!) that - Harvest did. Nor does that quote of Harvest say it is an oral tradition. Please stop lying.
The Bible doesn't say. However, I believe the Bible when it says Jeremy spoke those words.
No, I say you can't use that guy's razor to tell you that 'spoken by Jeremy' really means 'written by Zechariah'.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Bartholomew
New Member
The same reason why you and the NIV and NASB refer to "Jesus". There was probably nobody with this name in Judea at the time. The NASB calls the same name "Joshua" in the Old Testament; and I bet you do, too. If this is an error (and it is not), then take the beam out of your eye first.
The same reason why you and the NIV and NASB refer to "Jesus". There was probably nobody with this name in Judea at the time. The NASB calls the same name "Joshua" in the Old Testament; and I bet you do, too. If this is an error (and it is not), then take the beam out of your eye first. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say it is an error. But I don't see how you avoid saying that. I was pointing out the inconsistency of your "perfection." That's all. It was a very simple argument that pointed to the fact that the KJV simply got his name wrong compared to the OT. I think we all know who is being referred to. It is just a strange way to be "perfect."
The name "Iesous" is found all throughout the NT. The transliteration of it is "Jesus." I thought this was common knowledge. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that the NASB calls the same name "Joshua" in the OT. Iesous is not found in the OT. Yehoshua is but as you can tell from looking, that is a different word. One is Greek; the other is Hebrew. What the NASB (and every other version) translates as Joshua is the word Yehoshua.