-
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!
Where is the Bible?
- Thread starter Harold Garvey
- Start date
- Status
I didn't think you did until I found out there could be another interpretation of what you said. I'm the one who said "disgusting" and I'm sorry if that is not the way you meant.
I am not sure what that could be but I am not offended by anyone. I just wanted to clarify. Sorry to cause a distraction in this thread. I don't usually get involved in the translation debates much as a matter of practice but the KJVO arguments are beyond absurd.
What I think is hilarious, is that the KJVO attack the Alexandrian area as being "heretical", yet the manuscripts they tout (at least the original line) supposedly came from the area which was ARIAN; basically ancient Jehovah's Witnesses.
Forgive me for saying so, but if my choices are between a Jehovah's Witness MSS, and an Eastern Orthodox MSS, I'll take the Eastern Orthodox hand's down.
Forgive me for saying so, but if my choices are between a Jehovah's Witness MSS, and an Eastern Orthodox MSS, I'll take the Eastern Orthodox hand's down.
But since KJVO was started by a JW according to some, doesn't it fit? :laugh:
It's there by virtue of default according to some.:smilewinkgrin:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Hi Harold. Did you ask your OP question in good faith? I tried to begin to give you my honest answer to your question (by establishing a definition of the 'Bible'). I don't feel that you have extended to me the same consideration. For example, you did not attempt to answer even one of my questions.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Harold, do you believe that the canon of God's scriptures was closed with the completion of John's Revelation?
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
The main question of the thread has been answered by several, including myself. I'm not sure what Harold is looking for other than something besides the answers given.
Good question. For any translation(s) to be inspired, the canon must be ongoing. That's not to say that God no longer speaks, but that His word is already completed with the Revelation bringing it to a close; for a translation to be inspired it would mean that God is "rewriting" scripture as no two languages are perfect mirrors of one another.
God inspired His word when it was written. That inspiration was complete. His words still carry everything God wanted to impart in them no matter what language they are translated into from the original languages. And while we no longer have the original copies that came from the authors' pens, we have the copies that were painstakingly transcribed by generation after generation. Even those manuscripts that have differences shine God's light, and those differences allow us to see what changes were added in or was dropped over time.
Where is the bible? It is all over... in bookstores, book shelves, on desks, in cars, in computers, in churches, in hotel rooms, in waiting rooms... in many different languages and translations... all over the world. Each copy is God's word, the bible.
franklinmonroe said:
Good question. For any translation(s) to be inspired, the canon must be ongoing. That's not to say that God no longer speaks, but that His word is already completed with the Revelation bringing it to a close; for a translation to be inspired it would mean that God is "rewriting" scripture as no two languages are perfect mirrors of one another.
God inspired His word when it was written. That inspiration was complete. His words still carry everything God wanted to impart in them no matter what language they are translated into from the original languages. And while we no longer have the original copies that came from the authors' pens, we have the copies that were painstakingly transcribed by generation after generation. Even those manuscripts that have differences shine God's light, and those differences allow us to see what changes were added in or was dropped over time.
Where is the bible? It is all over... in bookstores, book shelves, on desks, in cars, in computers, in churches, in hotel rooms, in waiting rooms... in many different languages and translations... all over the world. Each copy is God's word, the bible.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I think you may be reading a bit more into this particular verse than is actually there. Notice that the verse explicitly states that God's holy men were moved to 'speak' (as opposed to 'write'). The Greek word is a form of laleo (Strong's #2980) meaning to utter by voice or emit sound. Remember, some true prophets spoke God's prophecies but were themselves not writers (Jesus, for example). Therefore, this verse only specifically teaches that all true prophets were moved by the Spirit to speak. There will be prophets in the future (see Revelation).
Of course, verse 21 follows a verse where we find "prophecy" linked directly with the word "Scripture". It is in verse 20 that we find the confirmation that any prophet's words recorded in Scripture originated in the mind of God. This particular verse does not even imply that God specifically motivated men to record these divine messages, just that the written teachings are purely His. There are verses that record God commanding a prophet (Moses, for example) to write His words. But because Jesus and NT writers refer elsewhere to the the text of their own day as " the Scriptures" I don't think we should say that this verse applies exclusively to the autographs. If we believe the canon is closed, not even true prophetic words in the future will be added to our Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, the modern KJVO movement was started by a Seventh Day Adventist and not a JW.
I have many copies of the Bible on my computer desktop, and in written form all over my house and in my car.
Agreed. But the TNIV is even better.
"For study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or the NKJV." [ From page 19 of "How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth" by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart.]
I'll disagree.
Well, for those of us who are not Hebrew and Greek scholars, the KJV is absolutely worthwhile since the Strong's is tied to the KJV. I also find it extremely useful for speaking to other people online in discussion and debate because it's kind of the base Bible for many. It's the one to go back to because no one argues with what the KJV says.
Unfortunate but true.Why on earth is that unfortunate?It's the one to go back to because no one argues with what the KJV says.
The KJV is so often maligned on here, yet everyone says it's not so.
Please cite which posts malign the KJV. It's my observation that KJVOists often malign translations other than the KJV, but then accuse others of maligning the KJV.
Ya know, if you guys can't see it, I'm not gonna try "showing" it to ya. In the last couple days there have been two threads that were totally about something else, yet someone had to make a "comment" about the KJV in them.
I'm not a KJVO, but it is my favorite/preferred version. So please don't go there.
I'm not a KJVO, but it is my favorite/preferred version. So please don't go there.
Because the KJV isn't the only valid Word of God.
It's not unfortunate that they don't argue with the KJV but that they DO argue with other Scripture.LISTEN! I'm not dodging anything, but I'm also not gonna point out the obvious to someone who refuses to see it. :BangHead
erhaps you are of the ilk that can't see the forest for the trees?If you read these threads often enough, and I do daily, you cannot miss the attitude towards the KJV on here. Then you all try to defend that by saying it's the KJVO position you don't like.
If I posted.............. " I also find it extremely useful for speaking to other people online in discussion and debate because it's kind of the base Bible for many. It's the one to go back to because no one argues with what the NIV says. Unfortunate but true."...........I'd bet that would be considered maligning the NIV, yet when that is posted about the KJV, it's OK.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's dodge number 2. You made the accusation, now back it up. Show me which post(s) in this thread are maligning the KJV.LISTEN! I'm not dodging anything, but I'm also not gonna point out the obvious to someone who refuses to see it. :BangHead
I read it, and do so daily. There's plenty of warranted criticism of the KJV, but no maligning. KJVOists (not you, but other folks here) will regularly accuse anyone who criticism of the KJV to be a maligning or an attack on it. Their hypocrisy is self-evident.If you read these threads often enough, and I do daily, you cannot miss the attitude towards the KJV on here. Then you all try to defend that by saying it's the KJVO position you don't like.
There's nothign maligning about citing translational errors in the KJV. There's nothing maligning about citing languages uses that have changed over the last 400 years. There's nothing lamigning about citing the source texts used by the KJV translators.
- Status