1. 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!

A need for a reverse-litmus test

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, May 24, 2011.

  1. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's the problem, stilllearning. You are trying to make the bible say what it does not. If I remember correctly, there were many different translations used by the authors of the New Testament; this was arrived at by the quotations of Old Testament passages and how they differed from the various texts. It is very possible that Paul used the actual Hebrew and not a Greek translation as he was very learned.

    Using your line of thinking we could claim that everyone should only wear one type of shoe as the people of the New Testament all wore sandals. Or that we shouldn't wear pants because everyone in the NT wore robes and tunics. Or that we shouldn't drive cars because... well, you get my point.

    Mexdeaf is correct: Jesus should be the only "test" we use. And that is Jesus Himself, not the Jesus only found in the KJV, TR, or any other sort of nonsense.

    Amen, brother. Some spend all their energy and time trying to promote a man-made doctrine instead of trying to share the Author of the book...
     
  2. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spot on. There will be no admission from Stilllearning...but spot on, nonetheless.

    The nail has officially been hit on its cranium.
     
  3. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely by "NOONE" he meant "no one."
     
  4. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    71
    You forgot one....

    Non-native speakers need to learn English if they ever want to read the real Bible.
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your right David.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    How do you know this? Have you compared every Old Testament reference in the New Testament to every Old Testament manuscript?
     
  7. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi C4K

    You asked..........
    I know this, because I believe that there was only one Old Testament version in Hebrew and one Old Testament version in Greek available at this time.

    If I am wrong about this, please fill me in.
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Exactly which Old Testament Hebrew version and which Old Testament Greek version did they use?

    You really think that you can take an Aramaic speaker translated into Greek and then English using a Greek or Hebrew Old Testament and state that they all used the same version of the Old Testament?
     
    #28 NaasPreacher (C4K), May 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2011
  9. Friend of God

    Friend of God Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    13
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's why my signature doesn't say the KJV is perfect, just sufficient.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I totally agree with the Spurgeon quote in your signature line
     
  11. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    As I said before.......“there was only one Old Testament version in Hebrew and one Old Testament version in Greek available at that time”.

    Therefore they must have used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek text.
    There were no other versions available!

    If they weren’t afraid of “onlyism”, than why are you?
     
  12. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    IF you can prove by facts that the translaters of the KJV, or its revisers in 1789, were under same inspiration as writers of the sacred NT books/texts, would agree with you on "onlyism" for today!

    if not able to say that...

    What 'special" rreason allows for KJV, not geneva Bible, one Reformers used/knew

    or the NKJV/NIV/Nasb etc?
     
    #32 JesusFan, May 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2011
  13. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi JesusFan

    As I have said dozens of times before, the KJV isn’t the issue; Preservation is!

    You asked........
    None; I make it a point not to ever criticize any version of the Bible.
    But......I don’t bury my head in the sand either.

    It is clear(to me), that Satan has always been attacking God’s Word;
    It is also clear(to me), that the CT is a result of this attack;
    Therefore I personally don’t use any Bible that comes from the CT.
    But I am not critical of anyone who does; It’s their choice.
    ---------------------------------
    You also stated........
    Of course they weren’t.
    (The KJV was not freshly inspired, it is simply a faithful translation, that has been proven by time!)

    But Satan didn’t just sit on his hands and simply leave this issue alone.
    This is why, so many Christians, are being convinced that a “faithful copy” of God’s Word in English, does not exist today!
     
  14. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    Again...

    WHY would God JUST perserve though the KJV?
    Why NOT Geneva Bible, Bishops etc

    Which KJV gor perserved?

    Why wouldn't God extend it to ALL Modern English versions?
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only hear folks like you say this, Still. No offense.
     
  16. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If preservation is the argument, and the fact that the devil has twisted the bible over time, then we should be going back to the Vulgate. It was around a very long time before ANY English translation. And there were several English translations BEFORE the KJV came about.

    Sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water, SL. You are still trying to preach your personal preference as doctrine.
     
  17. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have God's unadulterated Word in our modern translations.
     
  18. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    But which translation??

    Like I said.....
    Saying that God's Word, is "in"....our modern translations, is like saying "the Bible contains God's Word".
     
  19. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me see where to begin: RSV, NASU/B, NIV, NRSV, REB, HCSB, TNIV, ESV, CEB, and so on.

    Perhaps this is not the discussion for me.
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    That is an interesting statement since the Masoritic Text was not started until the 6th century AD.

    There were also several Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures. The LXX was simply the most used, recognised, and standardised one. How would you know that no one in the NT used one of these other lesser known translations since we only have scraps of the pre-church Septuagint?
     
    #40 NaasPreacher (C4K), May 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2011
Loading...