The Perfect Inerrant Bible

[EdSutton]

i'd always taken the meaning of begetting in Christ's unique case as a title rather than an event. if it's an event, has the event been completed, or is it always in progress?



boy, the profundities ... kinda reminds me of the eternal procession of the Spirit. never cld wrap my head around these toughies.

perhaps someone cld give a list of verses supporting both?

Heb. 13:8; Ps. 90:2; 106:48; Heb. 5:14; I Tim. 1:17 :thumbsup: There's just a few. Don't have time to hunt for more, at the minute. Language Cop says I gotta' look up "profundities"! :laugh: :laugh:

Might look at the Athanasian Creed, as well as the Nicean Creed.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Food for thought:
Romans 14:14-18

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food (or bible translation) you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food (or bible translation) the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking (or bible translations), but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.

What about Adding to the written Word of God? Might that be "food for thought" as well? It may be OK, and I believe it is to apply this principle the Bible translations; But I don't think it's OK to 'inject' this into or alongside as one reads the text. Maybe that's just me.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Careful, folks. If the Son was the "only begotten" in the sense He had a birth (or a beginning) then He wasn't enternal with God. The Greek word found in John 1:18 and John 3:16 is monogenes (Strong's #3439, compound of mono related to singleness as in oneness and genes as related to kind as in species) which literally means "single of its kind". This word is only used about sons and daughters in relation to their parents, but in the application to Christ it is not 'begotten' that should be translated but the uniqueness (the 'only' part). Christ is the unique Son of God but was never procreated or created by God.

What about the use of gennao, alone, as found in Hebrews? I agree, theologically, but one might have a tougher time with the Greek language, in select verses.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Unless He is eternally begotten.
Or unless this passage is simply speaking of Him being begotten in the flesh and born as a man. In which case He is the only person of the Trinity to be begotten.

If one believes that Jesus has an eternal Sonship with the Father, then one could make the connection that He is eternally begotten.

Yep! :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Maybe Bro. Askjo has had a "great awakening"!

Nah! Keep reading the thread! Like the 'prodigal son' ,

And when he came to himself, he said, (Lk. 15:7a - KJV)

"I'm ba-a-a-ack!" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

many of the liberal scholars who are responsible for "new versions" of the had an agenda, and in this case it happened to be denying the virgin birth.

Let's go with some more or less 'standard versions', here and the Editors, and check if they are/were "liberal"-
NIV - Dr Kenneth L. Barker - Nope! Dallas Seminary type, no liberal, he! (Also editor of- )
TNIV - see above
NKJV - Dr. Arthur L. Farstad (deceased) Same as above - Dallas
ESV - Dr. James I. Packer, General Editor, Liberal?? Not a chance- member of the ICBI from the outset, and long-time member of ETS.
CEV - Howard Clark Kee, I don't think so, but am not sure, here.
NASB - Lockman Foundation, No knowledge of the individuals involved, for they've remained anonymus.
AMP - Lockman, as well
NKJV - Farstad, briefly until his death, then Dr. Edwin A. Blum. Bob Jones and Dallas grad and also Prof.; Strong five point Calvinist, and extremely conservative.
Message - Eugene H. Petersen - 'paraphraser'? Yep! Liberal?? No!
I admit, I cannot tell one about associates of the above, but this seems unlikely, at the worst, for most of the above.

That is true. How sad!

If - BIG IF _"That is true.", "they" (whoever these faceless individuals called 'they' happen to be ), have overall done a very poor job of it. I have just checked Isa. 7:14 in all twenty English versions found on Bible Gateway. 19 of 20 render this as 'virgin'. Only the NLV does not. The NLV renders it as "A young woman, who has never had a man...". Unless I'm missing something, isn't that the exact meaning and description of a "virgin"?

No, it's NOT TRUE. Their 'agenda' was a correct-as-possible, bias-free translation.

Roby, I can agree that there are translations and translators "with an agenda" I'd offer the NWT as an example, and the GNB with Dr. Robert G. Bratcher, as another which, if not an 'agenda', had some definite biases, which can be seen in some readings. The 'Sconfield' translation would probably be another I'd mention, and I'd suggest the 'Goodspeed' and 'Moffat' win no prizes for any bent toward fundamentalism, either. So I'm not sure I would make this blanket statement so blithely. But I do basically fully agree as to most of the 'standard' versions.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Might look at the Athanasian Creed, as well as the Nicean Creed.

Ed

Language Cop tells me I misspelled Nicene Creed, above. Sorry!:tear:

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

Let's go with some more or less 'standard versions', here and the Editors, and check if they are/were "liberal"-
NIV - Dr Kenneth L. Barker - Nope! Dallas Seminary type, no liberal, he! (Also editor of- )
TNIV - see above
NKJV - Dr. Arthur L. Farstad (deceased) Same as above - Dallas
ESV - Dr. James I. Packer, General Editor, Liberal?? Not a chance- member of the ICBI from the outset, and long-time member of ETS.
CEV - Howard Clark Kee, I don't think so, but am not sure, here.
NASB - Lockman Foundation, No knowledge of the individuals involved, for they've remained anonymus.
AMP - Lockman, as well
NKJV - Farstad, briefly until his death, then Dr. Edwin A. Blum. Bob Jones and Dallas grad and also Prof.; Strong five point Calvinist, and extremely conservative.
Message - Eugene H. Petersen - 'paraphraser'? Yep! Liberal?? No!

NET - Dr. Daniel Wallace, Dallas Seminary

 

[Askjo]

Let's go with some more or less 'standard versions', here and the Editors, and check if they are/were "liberal"-
NIV - Dr Kenneth L. Barker - Nope! Dallas Seminary type, no liberal, he! (Also editor of- )
TNIV - see above
NKJV - Dr. Arthur L. Farstad (deceased) Same as above - Dallas
ESV - Dr. James I. Packer, General Editor, Liberal?? Not a chance- member of the ICBI from the outset, and long-time member of ETS.
CEV - Howard Clark Kee, I don't think so, but am not sure, here.
NASB - Lockman Foundation, No knowledge of the individuals involved, for they've remained anonymus.
AMP - Lockman, as well
NKJV - Farstad, briefly until his death, then Dr. Edwin A. Blum. Bob Jones and Dallas grad and also Prof.; Strong five point Calvinist, and extremely conservative.
Message - Eugene H. Petersen - 'paraphraser'? Yep! Liberal?? No!
I admit, I cannot tell one about associates of the above, but this seems unlikely, at the worst, for most of the above.

Dr. Frank Logsdon, former committee member for NASV, turned himself to be a KJV man. Praise the Lord!!!

 

[rsr]

Logsdon, of course, was not a member of the NASV committee, on translation or otherwise.

 

[EdSutton]

Logsdon, of course, was not a member of the NASV committee, on translation or otherwise.

Tsk! Tsk! Details!

Ed

 

[mcdirector]

I didn't know any of the translators for the NASB, so I did a search and it's amazing that when you search NASV committee -- several sites come up with Logsdon's terrible confession.

but on this site, http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php , Logsdon can't be found

 

[EdSutton]

Dr. Frank Logsdon, former committee member for NASV, turned himself to be a KJV man. Praise the Lord!!!

Even David Cloud who would appear to be a KJVO sort, if anyone is, says that Dr. Logsdon never claimed to be on any committee. Dr. Logsdon in his own testimony and words, says that he was an honorary member of the Lockman Foundation. As a highly respected Pastor, and as he and Dewey Lockman were of the closest of friends, this would not seem all that unusual. Dr. Logsdon did in fact, write the preface, to the NASV. He assisted Mr. Lockman in the feasibility study, encouraged Him to proceed, and helped interview a few of those who would become translators. Others make claims, that as far as I can tell, Dr. Logsdon did not make. The Lockman Foundation, some twenty years after the fact, issued a statement, that seems to be directed at some of these claims, rather than directly addressing Dr. Logsdon's words. A translator of the NASV, who supposedly represents the Lockman Foundation, said a decade ago in an e-mail, that perhaps no one had all the facts. I tend to agree.

There would seem to have been three individuals who had better than periphreal knowledge of this, all deceased. Mr. F. Dewey Lockman- who has been dead for over 30 yrs.; Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon- who has been dead 19 yrs., 2 mos., and counting toward 20; Dr. David O. Fuller- who has now been dead about 6 months less than Dr. Logsdon, or almost 18yrs., 8 mos.

These three are not able to defend themselves, any longer. :flower: So when I get to heaven, for the complete story, I'll ask them. :thumbsup: If they're not there, I guess someone else on the BB will have to ask them! :tongue3:

Ed

 

[kubel]

My question is simple, and I have asked it before but I wanted to start this thread on it.

Simple questions deserve straight forward answers. But some questions start questions of their own:

How do you define "inerrant"? It's hard to get an answer for your question since this definition is not found in the Bible, but rather, in man. The fundamental belief of inerrancy applies to the originals- as man was inspired to write- he did- and it was written by God through man without error. The Bible is clear that it was written through inspiration. I believe this, through faith, because the Bible says so.

I believe we have the inerrant scriptures translated into our language through many different translations, but I don't believe we have inerrant translations of those inerrant scriptures. I hope that makes sense. Please understand that KJVO suggests two direct workings of God through man (when it comes to the scriptures). One with inspiration, and one with translation. Inspiration can be backed by scripture, translation cannot. It is this scriptural + ascriptural formula that we are left with that tends to discourage people from accepting this man-made belief as part of their faith.

I once used to be a KJVO. But I dropped onlyism from my faith because I found it does not have scriptural support. I still read my KJV, though!

 

[robycop3]

I remember reading somewhere, not long ago, about a Bible made in the language of a certain overseas tribe. In their culture, knocking on one's doorway or dwelling wall is a show of disrespect, or a method used by would-be burglars to see if anyone's home, while coughing is a request to speak to the dwellers, equivalent to door-knocking for us. Therefore, that Bible version has Jesus saying, "Behold, I stand at the door and COUGH." This makes perfect sense to the people for whom this version is targeted. However, of course, if that version were translated directly into English, it would seem very strange to us.

I believe each valid version is made because God, knowing everything about every culture, "targets' them with His word. And that applies to different cultures within one nation or language also. The KJV and older English-language versions were made for the BRITISH, while most later English versions were made in the USA. And I believe each valid English version is perfect and inerrant for the group God intended to reach with it.

 

[Amy.G]

I And I believe each valid English version is perfect and inerrant for the group God intended to reach with it.

:applause:

 

[deacon jd]

Simple questions deserve straight forward answers. But some questions start questions of their own:

How do you define "inerrant"? It's hard to get an answer for your question since this definition is not found in the Bible, but rather, in man. The fundamental belief of inerrancy applies to the originals- as man was inspired to write- he did- and it was written by God through man without error. The Bible is clear that it was written through inspiration. I believe this, through faith, because the Bible says so.

I believe we have the inerrant scriptures translated into our language through many different translations, but I don't believe we have inerrant translations of those inerrant scriptures. I hope that makes sense. Please understand that KJVO suggests two direct workings of God through man (when it comes to the scriptures). One with inspiration, and one with translation. Inspiration can be backed by scripture, translation cannot. It is this scriptural + ascriptural formula that we are left with that tends to discourage people from accepting this man-made belief as part of their faith.

I once used to be a KJVO. But I dropped onlyism from my faith because I found it does not have scriptural support. I still read my KJV, though!

How can two different translations that have the same verses contradicting each other both be good translations of the inerrant scriptures? Thats the problem we have bibles that contradict each other. If God could inspire men to write the scriptures then why couldn't he inspire men to translate them?

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

If God could inspire men to write the scriptures then why couldn't he inspire men to translate them?

my point exactly!!

trouble is, every time i tell them my translation's inerrant n purified 8 times, they wanna call in the men in white :BangHead::BangHead:

can't win.

EDIT: ok, ok, show me where "two different translations ... have the same verses contradicting each other" besides [SIZE=-1]Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6.

[/SIZE]

 

[robycop3]

How can two different translations that have the same verses contradicting each other both be good translations of the inerrant scriptures? Thats the problem we have bibles that contradict each other. If God could inspire men to write the scriptures then why couldn't he inspire men to translate them?

The Hebrew itself has a major-league difference between 2 Kings 24:8 (Jehoiachin was eighteen when he began to reign) and 2 Chron.36:9.(Jehoiachin was eight years old when he bagan to reign)

If God has allowed such a difference to exist in the Hebrew, why can't He allow a few similar differences in translations?

On another tack, both Exodus and Numbers make references to badgers' skins in the KJV, while more modern versions say porpoise skins, dugongs' skins, etc. The Hebrew word here is tachash, whose meaning is uncertain. None of these creatures is a very good candidate, as there were no badgers in the area of the exodus, and they were quite scarce in Egypt. Same with sea-dwelling creatures. It appears that the translators, old and new, made an "educated guess". It's hard to fault any of them for naming any creature the 'tachashes' coulda been.

 

[Ed Edwards]

How can two different translations that have the same verses contradicting each other both be good translations of the inerrant scriptures? Thats the problem we have bibles that contradict each other. If God could inspire men to write the scriptures then why couldn't he inspire men to translate them?

You are signing different stuff with each hand???

I don't see you at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33814&page=3

It seems like you are assuming:
The KJV1 1769 Edition of the 1611 Translation is
the only word of God. and calling your assumption blessed.

With the other hand you are signing:

Damned are those who assume that all valid
English Translations contain the Written Word of
God. If there is any apparent contradiction or conflict,
we need to work this out amongst ourselves.

This is a DOUBLE STANDARD.
It makes you look LIKE or AS (i.e. a similie, not
an identification) the fool.
you bash my Bible (God's Holy Written Word) /the HCSB/.
By contrast, I love your KJV - all three different versions of
it that I have.

BTW, the very purpose of this Version/Translation forum
of the BB is to discuss what may seem like discrepancies to
somebody else.