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!
Please cite evidence for this claim. I am not assuming that it is not true but I have not been able to confirm that it is true.
Phew, thanks for clearing that up. I thought only Nicodemus had to be born again.
The Geneva Bible is different from the KJV, althought it was translated from the same basic underlying text. Can a Bible be different from the KJV and still be the word of God?
Jesus did not just quote from another version, he stood up in front of the congregation in his hometown synagogue and read aloud from an actual written copy of different version (see Lk. 4:16-21, cf. Isa. 61:1-2). If Jesus himself had no qualms about using a different version, why should we?
Numbers mean nothing if the 95% are descended from a corrupt copy or textual stream and the 5% are descended from a pure copy or textual stream.
Originally posted by ArcticBound:
The Bible issue is a very deep study! I'm sound in my position because it is by Faith! If I was to use another version, I would have to by faith accept that one as the Inspired, Preserved, Infallible Word of God! I can't accept anything else from an Infallible and Pure GOD! Here I go rambling on again
Our infallible and pure God has presented His word in English ever since the late 1300s, with no two versions being alike. There's no indication that He retired from this job in 1611. And the Scriptures differ among themselves in every valid version. The Jews of Jesus' time were just as aware of the differences between Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles where they describe the same events. They knew that the writers of each of those Scriptures had different perspectives, viewpoints, & writing styles and abilities.
There's no denying that God has preserved and presented His word in English AS HE CHOSE, in differing versions, as examples of all those versions still exist. While personal preferences for any one version is fine, and may even be guided by the Holy Spirit, there's simply no basis to arbitrarily choose just one of those versions as being the ONLY valid version, & declare all others bogus. This is just another attempt by the devil to sabotage the power of God's word by telling some people who use modern Bibles that "you don't got no real Bible", or those like me who use several versions that "you don't got no final authority". To them, I say, "Take the time to discover the FACTS, and find out for yourselves if the various KJVO authors are telling the truth or not."
Yes, it is close. But it is not the same. Was it "the word of God", yes or no?
Archangel7 has already mentioned Luke 4:16-21 and Isa. 61:1-2. The problems with your explanation is this:
Please cite evidence for this claim. I am not assuming that it is not true but I have not been able to confirm that it is true.
THEY HAD MANY CHECKS AND BALANCES. Each section that was translated by the translators was reviewed over and over again to make sure the correct translation was done!
She did not do any translating and she had a very minor role as a literary critic and she has never sat on the council that created the NIV. She did not disclose her lesbianism until years after the NIV was published. Kenneth Barker, the head of the NIV translating committee, said that had her views been known back then she would never have been used. I suggest you check your sources for truthfullness.
Are you God? Do you really know what's in their heart? Or are you just blowing smoke? This is a prime example of why I left the KJV only movement. That, and the fact that it's just not true.
Please cite evidence for this claim... The main reason the RCC wasn't happy with Erasmus was not his Greek text but his writings critical of churchmen and their practices... </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry it took so long to reply, but unlike most people on this board I did some research....You can find it cited in David Cloud's ROME AND THE BIBLE. (wayofliterature.com)</font>[/QUOTE] Unfortunately if all you did is read something published by David Cloud, you still haven't done any research unless you verified his facts by a more objective source.
I am satisfied that these things are true of the KJV as well. Infallible in all that it teaches. Inspired by deriving authority from the originals which God directly inspired. Preserved Word of God by the fact that it agrees with the message of the originals and other faithful Bibles before and after 1611.
A fact? Yes and no. The person who put the text into a trash can had no idea what it was. I could just as easily point to this event as a providential act of God Himself to prevent a ROMAN CATHOLIC from destroying a faithful copy of His Word. But to your specific point, no MV is derived from that manuscript or any other single manuscript. They actually come from all of the existing mss. Rightly or wrongly, some scholars have weighted the evidence to favor mss due to age or other factors. I don't agree with some of the logic either... but then again believing something because it is "tradition" is waaaaay too Catholic for me.
If you think this then you haven't researched this subject very well. The patristic witnesses favor the Alexandrian but seem to be a mix of the various families. The older citations are usually more Alexandrian.
Please cite evidence that people gave their lives to preserve whichever mss you think support your conclusion to the exclusion of those that don't.
It is plain to me that someone has deceived you if you think MV's come exclusively from Sinaiticus or if you think a text that was hidden from Catholic manipulation for over 1000 years is by necessity a bad thing simply because someone prevented an ignorant monk from throwing it away. A high mountain monastary manned by people who didn't know what they had, surrounded by muslims, at a great distance from Rome seems like a pretty good place for God to providentially preserve a very important witness to His Word. The timing of Tischendorf's visit borders on miraculous. He got there just in time to save this text from being lost forever.
As do the main MV's.
I don't know about the rest but there has probably never been a more orthodox, biblically fundamental group of translators dedicated to the ideals of biblical inspiration and inerrancy than the NASB translators. Each of them were required to affirm the statement of faith given here: http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/tlf/tlfabout.php
Yep... homosexuality is still a sin. As is executing a Baptist for preaching against the Church-State and infant baptism... Edward Wightman was tried and convicted for heresy by the same Church of England that gave us the KJV. Some of the trumped up charges against him contradicted each other. He was executed on King James authority in 1611.
Most MV's, such as the NASB, use a similar or perhaps better system of review. http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbprin.phpThe Technique the KJV translators used doesn't compare to any other translation ever done. PLEASE READ SOME BOOKS ON THE KJV TRANSLATORS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES
Then how can the KJV be the Word of God when it is not the same as the God inspired originals? Which of the 6-10 mss used by Erasmus to create the TR was the real thing?... then again, how can a new text created from several differing old texts be considered "the same".
Don't forget the subtle changes that the new tranlsations makeThe same is likely true of some of the KJV translators. The 39 Articles of Religion which they ascribed to affirms baptismal regeneration. Bishop Andrewes who headed the translation effort preached that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice. He was reported to have had Catholic leanings.If you have proof of this please cite it. If you don't then please apologize for making a statement that is more than likely false against people you don't know but who have placed their character and lives out there for everyone to review/criticize.or atleast don't think they are handling the Preserved WORD OF GOD!
BTW, the KJV translators obviously didn't believe that they were handling something that was preserved... they were bringing something new and unique into existence.