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!
Actually it can't. Language can only have one meaning. It is univocal. To attach more than one meaning to the same set of words in the same context is to destroy the possibility of rational communication.
There is "no text" in these verses because there is very questionable manuscript support. Most likely, the "text" in these verses was added in over the generations rather than deleted. This can be demonstrated by looking at the evidence.
But it proves from Scripture that the Holy Scriptures are not solely the KJV, as some on here would have us believe. People wanted a verse of Scripture. I gave it.
I don't either. I think the evidence in those cases leads to a high probability that, as doctrinally correct as those verses may be, they were added in by later copiers. The evidence for this supposition is found in various techinical commentaries and a work like Metzger's Textual Commentary on the NT (currently in its 2nd edition). It gives the various evidence for the disputed readings and discusses the probabilities for them. It is worth having to answer a lot of hte questions that many people have ... or at least should have.
And I gave a clear answer.
I am glad you brought it up because it presents a huge problem for you. As you probably know, the KJV has been changed numerous times in the past 400 years and the two main additions (Cambridge and Oxford) are not the same. The KJV was obviously lackign something, as evidenced by the changes it went through. Now you would have us believe that the current edition is teh right one and in so doing you would deny the "unlacking" word of God to all previous generations. In fact, you would deny it to the one who uses the opposite edition that you have. Will you fact that truth and give us a reasonable explanation for how the "unlackign word of God" took over 300 years to get it to its current condition? Will you also explain why it still has problems in its translation for the modern reader?
Who are these?
Pastor Bob, Here is another quote that you previously thought no one held. This is a statement of such amazing problems that it is remarkable that someone publicly states it. It singlehandedly denies the biblical doctrine of inspiration since Paul (who wrote something different than the KJV) thought he was writing the perfect word of God. It denies the existence of God's complete word at any time up till now.
It lacks a proper translation of a simple Greek word in Heb 10:23 and some other places. It lacks conformity to the vast majority of manuscripts in 1 John 5:7. It lacks clarity to modern reader in 2 Thess 2 and 1 Thess 4 where it uses the ancient meaning of a word that has a completely different meaning today. Most of all, it lacks a clear readable sentence structure for the modern reader.
I tell you what, If you can show me the originals then I will listen to your ramblings;problem is they are not available..Psalms 12:6-7 has everything to do with bible preservation;that is if you are a bible believer..
I'm sorry but are incorrect.. The "Apocrapha" is,however, part of the canon in the North African Vatican-Roman catholic texts That ALL(1880 on) Alexandrian corruptions hail from......
Now, you say, there is very questionable manuscript support. When I presented the list of verses with no text, you said there is very questionable manuscript support, and that the text was most likely added, shown, as you say, by looking at the evidence. Is it “Thus saith the LORD...” or “Yea, hath God said...?”
What about the text you believe? Is it indeed the text of the Authorized King James Version Bible that you believe, as you said you did? Or do you believe the text of the Authorized King James Version Bible is very likely corrupt? What do you say, now, about the text of the other versions? Are the other versions also presented by you, under the basis of, “Thus saith the LORD...” or instead, “Yea, hath God said...?” Is the text you believe saying God has "origins" like the NIV teaches in Micah 5:2? Is He the one that needs a sacrifice offered for Him to take away His sins? (NASB, NIV, ESV in Luke 2:22), or the one that can be deceived in Psalm 78 NASB. Or is Jesus lying in John 7:8 NASB? Does the text you believe show God does not show partiality as taught in the NKJV, NIV, NASB? God definitely does show partiality as is taught throughout the whole Bible, and as a Calvinists you should recognize that, yet these faulty versions teach that He doesn't. According to the text you believe, is your God the one who doesn't take away life, as taught by the NKJV, NIV, NASB or the one who does not respect persons, as taught by the Authorized King James version Bible?
No Larry. Is that a typing error on your part, or a deliberate attempt to mislead? This statement of yours is as stunning, and as shocking as your bold declaration that the apostle Paul did not have a copy of the Authorized King James Version Bible. I give you the benefit of the doubt, but think it would be helpful if you clarified yourself. I said, “Just imagine! My English Bible is of more worth now, than the acclaimed original!” Now, my 1611 Authorized King James Version Bible is of more worth than the acclaimed original. Those that doubt that, Show me the original, now.
I speak modern English, and the language of the 1611 is modern English. What language do you speak, Larry? Perhaps you need a foreign language version, and not English language, to help you. Perhaps that would solve your problem of saying you believe the text of the many versions each presenting conflicting meanings.
There you have it folks!!!A honest to goodness bible rejecting Apostate Fundalmentalist;God is not able [AT ALL]to preserve his word,WOW!!!what a revelation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why bother?? you just said there is no perfect translation:remember??
Oh, Really?? How??(Prov 12:15)
What bible?? you said no bible is trustworthy;what a statement!!!(James 1:8)
Faith in WHAT????
Whoa!!!! like telling them there is no bible right??(James 1:8)
See MAtt 23:24 for more details!!!
Ah, so, you admit that Alexandrians think that KJV users/believers are unlearned dolts,right???
What word ???remember???
Uh,yeah.. but being a bible rejector is???Matt 23:24!!
Yes I believe you allready have proven that (see first statment)..
There is no one jumping all over the KJV here, at least not that I have seen.
Nephilim is a transliteration because we are not sure what it means. "Giants" means that the translators entered into interpretation rather than translation.
I haven't seen this evidence. Where have you posted it? So far you have posted nothing that hasn't been soundly refuted from Scripture. Perhaps I missed a post somewhere. (Of course I didn't. You simply have not offered any proof.)
Did you notice how you changed my words?? I said nothing about God’s ability to do something. We are discussing whether or not he did something, not whether or not he is able to. It is wrong to misrepresent what people say. I don’t have much patience for it. It is completely wrong and unethical to misrepresent your opponent no matter how much you disagree with him.
Here you did it again. I did not say that no Bible was trustworthy. You fabricated that to make your own point. Why won’t you be honest and deal with the facts. You cite James 1:8 but I fail to see the relevance. I am not double minded; I am not unstable. You cite Prov 12:15 but I fail to see how that applies to me. I have not set my own mind up as the standard. I have accepted the word of God as the standard. The evidence is that I have not become persuaded by something that cannot be supported from Scripture. As soon as you can show me that Scripture dictates I use only the KJV, then I will do it. Until then, it is not a word from God; it is a word from man.
Interesting that you cite this one. It was some kind of Freudian slip because it is one of the clear translational errors of the KJV. The word translated “strain at” really means “strain out.” Your post gave me the opportunity to show you an error in the KJV. Get out your Greek lexicon and look the word up. It means to strain out, as in using a filter. It is not to strain at, as in trying to reach something. Every version has corrected this and every lexical source is in agreement. It is a minor point that will not cost anyone their salvation, but it is a problem that should be corrected.
No I didn’t say that. I said that I believe most are mislead and have not studied the issue. Your responses confirm this to me.
I praise God that Jesus wasn't begotten because that would mean he wasn't God. God did not come into existence. He has always been. Jesus was not begotten; he has always been.
I would like to see this. So far, I have proven everything you have asked. I have shown you errors of translation in the KJV; I have shown you undeniable proof that things other than the KJV can be called the word of God and were called such by none other than Christ, Paul, Peter, the OT prophets and other writers of Scripture. Your problem is not with my proof. It is with your unwillingness to accept what Scripture says.
Bring the evidence please. I have never one time set myself up as the final authority. I have accepted what God said. It is you who have set yourself up as the final authority. I have shown you clear passages of Scripture that refute your position. Yet you will not submit your mind to Scripture. You insist that your thinking is right, no matter what is shown from Scripture. You even said that the quotation of Scripture was getting tired to you. That is an amazing statement from someone who claims to hold Scripture as the final authority.
