What use is an English Bible Version for those who can't read English?

Get D.A. Waite's book, "Foes of the King James Bible Refuted." Read it.

 

The problem is that in some translations there are certain words and sometimes whole verses left out, so no stumbling there..unless you wonder why these verses are to be found in the King James Bible and not in the other translation...by the way, if you can find a bible in your own language which is complete and trustworthy, go ahead, but for example, in the diferent papiamento bibles, there are many verses and words left out or totally changed in such a way that it will have a different meaning...so thats why for the papiamento speaking people I would advice to learn and use the King James Bible if they want to seriously study their bible, because simply said, in the papiamento language there is no trustworthy translation.

 

Sometimes it is just a matter of reading it in their context
Read John's Gospel, ch21, and tell me which form of love Jesus and Peter are discussing. It's impossible to determine without looking at the Greek.

Do they [your children] see the differences ?
Yes, they do. They're pretty versed at it, through no prodding on my part.

It does speak of preservation…where is it ?
You're the one asserting preservation. You tell me.

God has choosen the King James Bible to be the preserved text, who am I to questioning Him
Where does it say this in the Bible? I question what is not biblically supported to ensure that it's not of Satan.

First of all, there is no such thing as a original greek or hebrew manuscript
What did the KJV translators use? The texts they used still exist today.

Sometimes what seem to be an error is not always an error after carefully examination
Well, how am I supposed to examine it if I'm not allowed to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts used by the KJV translators?

 

I don't understand your point. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic who lived during the Reformation. He refused to convert from Catholicism in spite of the continued efforts of his protestant friends.

Being buried by Protestants does not save someone.

 

As I already said before, there does not exist such as a original text any more, the only thing we have today are numerous copies...even God once told Jeremiaha to trow the original in the river: And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates: Jeremiaha 51:63

Due to lack of time I cannot go deeper in detail now about your other points.

Since your primary language is dutch, I do have a link to a dutch version about The Word of God: short article of the Word of God in dutch

 

As I already said before, there does not exist such as a original text any more,

You're quite mistaken. The texts that the KJV translators used are still in existence today, and readily available. Also, many Bibles, in particular, KJV, have strongs references to the original Greek and Hebrew, complete with Greek and Hebrew definitions in English.

 

I have read it. I have also listened to part of a tape of him speaking. One interesting thing is these things seem not to have circulated as much prior to his death making direct rebuttal impossible. If we were able to confront him on some of the contended issues, perhaps we could get closer to the truth. Suffice it to say that Lockman denies that Logsdon was a part of the committee or that he participated in any meaningful way.

I have read the responses to the charges supposedly raised by Logsdon. You would do well to read both sides as well.

One of the things that indicates to me that Lockman is being truthful is that they don't have a compelling reason to lie. Assuming that the whole booklet is true- a single individual out of the great number who contributed to the NASB that becomes disillusioned with the effort would not have been a big deal. Standing alone, Logsdon's opinion is just an opinion. However, a provable deception on Lockman's part would be devastating not only to the translation but to the reputations of the many notable scholars that contributed to it.

Everything in the booklet is superficial opinion. Logsdon doesn't present any sort of weighted argument against the NASB that lacks an intelligent rebuttal. Maybe even more importantly, it does not establish KJVOnlyism as truth. If it could be proven that the NASB translators were in error or worse in collusion to intentionally create a corrupted translation, that still would not prove any of the contentions of KJVO's.

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

By their own definitions

But it isn't their own definition. It's a definition you jumbled together out of various statements they made.

it is fair to say they believe the Bible is a mythological book that never existed between two covers.

Someone better tell my NASB it never existed. I don't think it knows any better.



(I mean, come on, what kind of "argument" is that? Apart from KJV-only wishful thinking, anyway?)

 

You are quite mistaken, either you did not seeme to understand my posting or you just do not know the difference...none of the manuscripts tday are the orinigals...all are copies of the originals, no such thing as original...all the manuscripts the world has today are written over and over and over...some translations do use the argumants that older manuscripts do not have certain vesres so they put their verses in their translaion between braccets...but that is a different discussion...please try to find out exact what I am writing or the rest of the discussion will be meaningless

 

Askjo said:

Get D.A. Waite's book, "Foes of the King James Bible Refuted." Read it.

Once again, I am not interested in your changing the subject. We are not talking about D. A. Waite or foes of the King James Bible.

We are talking about whether or not "Dr." Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. went on the Ankerberg show and said a Russian would have to learn English to read God's Word.

Instead of changing the subject (Waite is irrelevant), why not just tell me: Did "Dr." Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. say this, or did he not, and what is your evidence?

Whom should I believe? White, who was there? or Waite, who was not? or you, who was not?

Decisions, decisions.

 

You are quite mistaken, either you did not seeme to understand my posting or you just do not know the difference...none of the manuscripts tday are the orinigals...

I understand what you are saying. We don't have documents that are the first or earliest copies. Considering that it took the entire OT and NT thousands of years to be written, that is not surprising.

That being the case, if one holds to versionology, one places a version (or translation) up to the level of perfection, ignoring the texts from which that version came. If the manuscripts are imperfect, then any translation coming after them is imperfect. There's no biblical support for "reassembly" or "reconstitution" of the Bible after the fact, regardless of version, regardless of language. Hence, holding any version as the "only perfect and infallible version" is idolatrous.

 

This is absolutely fair, I used their own words. You are the one who is playing games by failing to admit their statement of faith on the Bible makes no sense. Nothing here is redefined and your accusation of dishonesty is just as unfounded as your faith in these confused men. These men are being deceptive in their statement of faith. They claim the Bible is inspired and inerrant . Then they define what they mean by Bible. The Bible they’re talking about never existed. They slip, slide, and slink around the fact that they do not believe that any Bible is inerrant. This is called “bait and switch” and is considered false advertising. You advertise a Mercedes for $10k, then when a customer arrives you say that one is sold, but I have one here for $100k. The translators of the NASB do not believe in an inerrant Bible any more than you do Scott. They dishonestly market their Bible under the guise that they believe in an inerrant Bible.

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

This is absolutely fair, I used their own words.

Yes, you used their own words, but since you arranged them in a deceptive manner, you used them not to accurately report the position of the Lockman Foundation, but to bear false witness against them.

I could adopt your methodology and claim that in New Age Bible Versions, "God And" Riplinger wrote that "Satan...in loving concern...provided me access to documents" (pp. 53, 3-4). Misrepresentation, you say? How can that be? I used her words, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

 

Absolutely yes! Samuel Gipp was there. He answered yes!

 

Glad to hear you agree. But then what was your purpose in changing the subject to a false personal attack on White and Ankerberg? A bit of "poisoning the well," perhaps, to prejudice someone against those authorities?

 

D. A. Waite's book, "Foes of the King James Bible Refuted" will answer the comments in the John Ankerberg show. Who are in this show: John Ankerberg, James White, Dan Wallace, Kenneth Baker, Samuel Gipp, Joseph Chamers, Arthur Farstad, Don Wikins and Thomas Strouse. This book refuted Samuel Gipp's comments. Go ahead and read it. I hope this book will help you understand better.

 

Scott and Ransom,

Your personal attacks in accusing me of being “dishonest” and “bearing false witness” (in violation of BB rules – where is TomVols when MVrs are the violators) illustrate the complete bankruptcy of your reasoning. I simply have shown what these men have said. They use a word in context, and provide a specific definition for that word. I used their own words in a completely logical and reasonable manner. It is time for you two to apologize for accusing me of being dishonest and bearing false witness, or will you now justify yourselves before men?

[ May 29, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

Since everyone's chiming in and this thread is destined to die at the hand of a moderator, I just thought that I'd say that an English bible, without a translator, is meaningless to someone who does not know how to read English. Most KJVO people realize this. Apparently Gipp believes differently and shows why the Waite/Cloud group seperates themselves from such an unreasonable position postulated by the Pete, Gipp, and Rip crowd.

Thanks for your time gents.

Jason

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

Your personal attacks in accusing me of being “dishonest” and “bearing false witness” (in violation of BB rules

You quoted the Lockman Foundation out of context to give the impression they believed the Bible was, to use your words, "mythological book that never existed." That is blatantly, transparently, untrue.

A personal attack is one in which it is said that someone's arguments should be disregarded because he is a bad person. What I posted was that your arguments should be disregarded because they are not true, i.e. they lead to a false conclusion.

If you posted false information about the Lockman Foundation (to wit, that they believe the Bible is "a mythological book that never existed"), that makes you a false witness, doesn't it?

It is time for you two to apologize for accusing me of being dishonest and bearing false witness

Your claim that the Lockman Foundation believes in "a mythological book that never existed" was calculated, deliberate, and untrue.

Therefore, there will be no apology forthcoming from me.

 

Ransom,

Ok, show where the context changes the thrust of my post. What you said was personal. You accused me of lying didn’t you? Doesn’t that make me a liar in your view? The way they have defined Bible does make it something that never existed. They were so busy trying to make people think they were Bible believers that they got caught in their own web. Do you think any of those Lockman folks believe there has ever been an inerrant Bible?? Do you think they believe those 66 books have ever been together here on earth in any form where they were inerrant??? And you accuse me of being dishonest???? If they were honest here they would say plainly that they attribute inerrancy to the original autographs only. Instead they twist the definition of the word Bible so they do not have to admit what they really believe. This is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence!!! My information about the Lockman Foundation is absolutely accurate. My conclusion is one that is clear as the English words they used to formulate their thoughts. You have accused me of lying, now prove it. Put up or shut up.